Foundation-backed Hamidi v. SEIU class action lawsuit for over 40,000 nonmember workers seeks refunds of monies taken in violation of the First Amendment

Sacramento, CA (July 9, 2018) – The recent Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME strengthens the legal case brought for 40,000 California state employees seeking refunds of dues seized by Service Union International (SEIU) union officials.

Hamidi et al. v. SEIU Local 1000 is a class-action lawsuit challenging SEIU Local 1000 union officials’ opt-out policy that required workers to affirmatively opt-out of the portion of union fees that workers cannot be legally required to fund. In 2015, a federal District Court Judge certified National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney W. James Young as the attorney for the class of over 40,000 nonmembers who have been forced to fund SEIU union officials as a condition of employment.

On the same day Janus was decided, Young wrote a Rule 28(j) letter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally notifying the Court of the Janus decision and its relevance to the Hamidi case. The High Court’s opinion in Janus, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, makes several points that bolster the legal claims of lead plaintiff Ken Hamidi and the other tens of thousands of other workers who seek damages for improperly seized “non-chargeable” union fees going back to June 2013.

In Janus the Supreme Court not only made it clear that the First Amendment protects public sector workers from being required to make any payments to a union as a condition of government employment, but also that workers cannot be required to opt out of such payments. According to the Supreme Court, “neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

The Court also held that, since at least 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a similar class of tens of thousands of nonmember employees forced to pay money to SEIU Local 1000 in the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, unions “have been on notice” about the dubious legal grounds for requiring workers to pay any union fees.

Because SEIU Local 1000 did not adjust its policy of forcing workers to opt-out of non-chargeable fees after the Knox decision, the Supreme Court’s Janus decision means the union could now be required to refund all non-chargeable fees (determined by the Supreme Court in Janus to be all fees) seized since June 2013 from over 40,000 class members, an amount likely well over $100 million.

“Around the country, the effect of the Janus decision is just starting to be felt,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Thanks to this landmark ruling, tens of thousands of California government employees are now a step closer to finally receiving recompense for years of being forced to hand over their hard-earned money to an SEIU union they choose not to join.”

Worker’s labor board charges say union and company violating the law to impose unionization, ask for secret ballot vote to remove union

Seattle, WA (July 5, 2018) – Today, housekeepers at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Seattle, Washington filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking for a decertification vote to remove the UNITE HERE Local 8 union from their workplace. The union was installed through an abuse-prone “card check” drive, which bypasses an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election. The petition was filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

In a card check drive, union organizers can pressure, intimidate or mislead workers into signing cards, which then are counted as “votes” in favor of unionization. In the case of the UNITE HERE card check at Embassy Suites Seattle, company officials created further pressure by assisting union organizers in collecting cards before utilizing them to install the union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining “representative.” Because the state of Washington lacks a Right to Work law, even workers who choose not to be voluntary union members can be forced to pay dues or fees to union officials, or else be fired.

Foundation staff attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against the union and hotel management for housekeeper Gladys Bryant, who helped lead the drive to remove UNITE HERE.

Her charge against the union states that union officials illegally misled her about how to revoke the card union organizers had her sign. After learning more about the union’s activities and deciding she did not want UNITE HERE in her workplace, she asked a union agent how to withdraw her support. Contrary to the law, she was told she would need to drive to the union hall to revoke. When she did drive hours to demand her card in person, union officials had locked her out.

Bryant’s charge against the company alleges that hotel management violated federal labor law by assisting UNITE HERE with the card check campaign. That assistance included granting union organizers access to the workplace, turning over employees’ personal information to union organizers, and agreeing to silence any opposition to unionization from managers.

The charges ask the NLRB to either invalidate the card check unionization due to illegal conduct, or hold a decertification election to let the workers vote out the union they oppose. If the NLRB Regional Director applies the controversial Obama Labor Board decision Lamons Gasket to block the workers from holding a secret ballot vote to remove the union, Foundation staff attorneys will appeal and ask the newly composed five-member Board to overturn the decision, which prevents votes for one year after a card check recognition.

“This situation demonstrates the coercive, and often collusive, environment that accompanies a card check campaign, and demonstrates why the new Trump Labor Board should promptly abandon the disastrous Lamons Gasket decision, which locks workers into forced dues ranks even when a majority opposes a union,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“This case uniquely spotlights one of the many double standards in federal labor law, which rigs the system in favor of forced unionism,” added Mix. “Although past Labor Boards have frequently declined to prosecute companies for assistance given to union organizers, they would prosecute the company for giving exactly the same type of assistance to workers seeking to remove a union. It is long past time this inequity in enforcement be eliminated.”

Springfield, VA (July 3, 2018) – In light of the new U.S. Supreme Court Janus ruling that declares compulsory union fees for government employees to be unconstitutional, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, who argued and won the case, has sent letters to state comptrollers or other officials responsible for the state payroll in 21 states without Right to Work laws. The letter demands they comply with the new legal protections for workers and immediately cease deductions of union fees from the paychecks of all nonmember state employees.

The Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME, argued by Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, that forcing government employees who are not union members to pay union fees as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Court’s opinion clarified that nonmember employees must “clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them” for payment to a union.

The Foundation’s letter was sent to the appropriate officials in all states that lack an active state Right to Work law, in which before Janus workers could be compelled to pay fees to a union to keep their jobs, even if they were not a union member. However, under the new protections in Janus, union officials can no longer require public-sector employees to pay dues, and payments can no longer be deducted from nonmembers’ paychecks without express consent.

In the letter, the Foundation urges those states to “immediately stop the deduction of union fees from the paychecks of all nonmember state employees,” as one state controller has already announced will be done.

If states do not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the letter explains that “Foundation staff attorneys will bring a civil rights action seeking class-wide injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees for any nonmember state employees who request their assistance.”

“Although the Janus decision is a huge victory for independent-minded government employees across the nation, a long road remains ahead to enforce the new protections of their First Amendment rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials just lost their forced-fees privileges to dock the paychecks of five million public-sector workers. The Foundation will continue to give workers a voice by making sure union bosses respect workers’ constitutional rights.”

The Foundation has also established www.MyJanusRights.org to inform government employees of their new rights.

Class-action lawsuit for Michigan workers, now before the Supreme Court, says union boss’ limitations on ending forced dues violate workers’ rights

Washington, D.C. (July 2, 2018) – After the Janus decision was announced, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review a 6th Circuit Court decision against grocery store employees Robbie Olendorf and Sandra Adams. The two employees of Oleson’s Food Stores in Michigan are pursuing a class action lawsuit with free legal assistance from Foundation staff attorneys. They contend that United Food and Commercial Workers Local 876 (UFCW) union’s check-off revocation restrictions violate federal labor law.

Michigan’s Right to Work protections, which were signed into law by Governor Snyder in 2012, make union membership and financial support strictly voluntary. However, union officials frequently block workers from exercising their legal rights. Robbie Ohlendorf and Sandra Adams, a part-time stocking clerk and a cashier respectively at Oleson’s Foods Stores, found this out when they attempted to exercise their right to end payments to UFCW officials in 2016.

When the two submitted letters to the UFCW Local 876 revoking their authorization for the union to collect dues, UFCW officials rejected their attempt. The officials cited a “window period” and certified mail rule, which require any revocation to take place only in an arbitrary union-defined time period and only by certified mail.

Believing UFCW’s policies violated their rights, Ohlendorf and Adams turned to National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys for help. With free Foundation-provided legal representation, the pair filed a federal class-action lawsuit in December 2016 against UFCW Local 876. They brought the lawsuit on the grounds that union officials’ restrictions violate their statutory rights and breach the union’s duty of fair representation by limiting dues revocations to a “window period” and demanding that such requests be made via certified mail.

After a Western Michigan District Court judge ruled that the dues deduction authorizations containing the restrictions were binding, Ohlendorf and Adams appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in March declined to overturn the district court’s ruling. For the first time, the Court of Appeals also held that employees cannot bring a lawsuit statutorily challenging a union’s restrictions on revocations.

If their petition is granted and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the two workers’ lawsuit may have a resounding impact on whether employees can sue in federal courts to challenge union-imposed window periods, which are frequently used by union officials to prevent workers from exercising their legal right to stop dues payments in Right to Work states.

“Unions have a long history of using these so-called ‘window period’ rules to block workers from exercising their legal rights and continue to seize forced dues against their will,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Even in Right to Work states, Big Labor officials will concoct new methods to keep extracting dues from workers—and now the Supreme Court will have a chance to weigh in and potentially put an end to these abusive union practices.”

“Arbitrary union limitations on ending dues payments violates union officials’ duty not to use their government-granted monopoly powers to discriminate against workers who exercise their legal rights to resign from union ranks,” continued Mix.

MyJanusRights.org offers free legal assistance to public employees seeking to enforce right to cut off union fees as protected by Janus v. AFSCME decision

Springfield, VA (June 28, 2018) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced the creation of a task force to defend the rights of government employees as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

The Foundation’s Janus Task Force includes veteran Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, who successfully argued Janus v. AFSCME before the Supreme Court and other staff attorneys who worked on the case.

The National Right to Work Foundation has also established a stand-alone website to assist workers in learning their rights and providing guidance on how to exercise them. That site, www.MyJanusRights.org, directs workers to the Foundation’s legal aid program for free assistance in exercising their First Amendment rights protected by the Janus decision. Foundation legal aid can also be obtained through www.nrtw.org or by calling 1-800-336-3600.

The Foundation is offering free legal aid to all government workers who wish to refrain from union membership and union payments. The Foundation’s eighteen staff attorneys defend workers’ rights in more than 200 cases each year, all at no cost to the employees aided.

“The victory in Janus means that public-sector workers can no longer be forced to pay dues or fees to union officials to keep their jobs,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, experience shows us that union officials frequently ignore restrictions on their power over workers, which is why we are establishing this task force to assist workers who want to enforce their new Janus rights.”

The Foundation has a long history of assisting employees seeking to exercise their Right to Work protections. Defending and enforcing Right to Work protections has long been one of the most critical tasks Foundation staff attorneys undertake. Any public-sector worker who has questions about his or her rights, or encounters any resistance or abuse while trying to exercise his or her workplace rights, is encouraged to contact Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid.

Washington, DC (June 28, 2018) – This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded Riffey v. Rauner, asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of the new precedent set in the National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision. A group of Illinois home care providers filed Riffey with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The case seeks the return of over $32 million in fees seized by SEIU union officials in a scheme declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Riffey v. Rauner is a continuation of the 2014 Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn case. In Harris, the Court ruled that a forced dues scheme imposed by the state of Illinois, in which over 80,000 individual homecare providers in Illinois were unionized and thus required to pay union fees, violated the First Amendment.

In 2014, the case was re-designated Riffey v. Rauner and remanded to the District Court to settle remaining issues, including whether or not tens of thousands of providers who had never joined the union would receive refunds of the money taken from them unlawfully by the SEIU. In June 2016, the District Court ruled that, despite the Supreme Court ruling in Harris, the SEIU did not have to repay the funds. Foundation staff attorneys appealed that ruling to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed, claiming that, even though these workers never consented to their money being taken for forced dues, they did not suffer First Amendment injury.

Foundation staff attorneys earlier this year asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case to clarify that it is a violation of the First Amendment when fees are taken from nonmembers without their consent. After the Court released its ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, declaring it a First Amendment violation for public sector workers to be required to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, the Court granted certiorari in Riffey, vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals.

“With the Supreme Court remanding Riffey, we are one step closer toward vindicating the rights of the tens of thousands of victims, many whom are family members caring for disabled children in their own homes,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court already ruled in the Foundation’s 2014 Harris v. Quinn case that the scheme violated the First Amendment. It is long past time that the over $32 million illegally seized by SEIU union bosses be returned.”

“Now, with the new protections for workers afforded by our landmark Janus v. AFSCME victory, it is critical to establish that unions cannot require individuals to ‘opt out’ of union dues that they cannot be required to pay in the first place,” continued Mix. “Union officials are already using such ‘opt-out’ schemes nationwide to limit workers’ constitutional protections. Ultimately, a clear ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue is needed to ensure that individuals who never joined a union cannot be required to take affirmative steps simply to protect their First Amendment rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court issues 5-4 decision that government workers cannot be forced to pay union fees

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger takes questions from reporters after arguing the Janus case on February 26, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 27, 2018) – In a major victory for First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Janus v. AFSCME that non-union government workers cannot be required to pay union fees as a condition of working in public service. This landmark case restores the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association to more than 5 million public school teachers, first responders and other government workers across the country.

Mark Janus, plaintiff in the case and a child support specialist for state government in Illinois offered the following reaction: “I’m thrilled that the Supreme Court has restored not only my First Amendment rights, but the rights of millions of other government workers across the country. Across the country, so many of us have been forced to pay for political speech and policy positions with which we disagree, just so we can keep our jobs. This is a victory for all of us. The right to say ‘no’ to a union is just as important as the right to say ‘yes.’ Finally our rights have been restored.”

Janus filed his case in Illinois in 2015 with free legal aid from the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Jacob Huebert, Janus’ attorney from the Liberty Justice Center, responded to today’s ruling: “This is the biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation. The First Amendment guarantees each of us, as individuals, the right to choose which groups we will and won’t support with our money. Today the Supreme Court recognized that no one should be forced to give up that right just to be allowed to work in government. The Court recognized that unions have the right to organize and to advocate for the policies they believe in – but they don’t have a special right to force people to pay for their lobbying. They have to play by the same rules as everyone else.”

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, offered the following comment:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees coast-to-coast that will free millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees from mandatory union payments. While this victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. Union officials and their allies in state government have already taken steps to prevent workers from exercising their rights under the Janus decision, while millions of private sector workers in states without Right to Work protections are still forced to pay union fees or else be fired. Further, workers of all stripes continue to have their freedoms of association violated by being forced under union monopoly ‘representation’ against their will. So while we celebrate today’s decision, there remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.”

Background: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME on Feb. 26, 2018. On the day of oral arguments, a large crowd of public school teachers, other government workers and supporters from across the country rallied outside the Supreme Court on Janus’ behalf, calling on the court to “Stand with Mark” and “Stand With Workers.”

Illinois is among 22 states that has required many government workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment. Plaintiff Mark Janus has worked for state government in Illinois as a child support specialist since 2007. Over the past decade, he was forced to pay thousands of dollars in union fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – even though he opposes many of the union’s positions on public policy issues, felt he would be better off without the union’s so-called representation and was never asked if he wanted to be covered by a union contract. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in his favor, Janus will not be required to pay these union fees.

The fight over non-member union fees intensified in Illinois in 2015, when Gov. Bruce Rauner filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago to declare non-member union fees unconstitutional. Lower courts ruled that the governor did not have standing to bring this suit because he personally was not required to pay union fees. That’s when state worker Mark Janus intervened in the lawsuit with the help of the Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The case was renamed Janus v. AFSCME, and Janus was successful in taking this fight all the way to the highest court in the nation.

More information about the case is available at www.nrtw.org/janus.

Washington, D.C. (June 22, 2018) – In a decision issued Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board has found that Teamsters union officials violated workers’ rights by “repeatedly and deliberately” failing to honor the workers’ requests that deduction of union dues from their wages stop. The ruling affects thousands of workers whose rights were similarly violated by Teamsters officials.

The case was brought by several employees at Walt Disney World and United Parcel Service (UPS) in Florida. These workers each resigned from their membership in Teamsters Local 385 and revoked their authorization for union officials to charge dues.

However, Teamsters Local 385 union officials ignored the workers’ requests to stop collecting dues. Instead, union officials delayed months, until the window periods for withdrawing dues deduction authorization had expired, before responding that the workers had to continue to pay dues until the next window period.

The workers sought free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in filing charges. The NLRB has ruled that Teamsters Local 385 officials violated the employees’ rights by failing to honor their requests to resign membership and stop paying union dues, and ordered the union to refund the union dues that were illegally charged during the period the Teamsters had ignored the workers’ requests.

Moreover, the Board majority recognized that the workers who were affected by the union officials’ practice of delaying action on requests to stop dues deductions “number in the thousands and are spread across central Florida.” Consequently, Teamsters Local 385 was ordered to notify all represented Disney and UPS employees of the Board’s decision by mail as well as by a posted notice.

National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens issued the following statement about today’s decision:

“This ruling is an important victory for workers over scofflaw Teamsters officials who, as the Board found, repeatedly and deliberately violated the rights of the very workers they purport to ‘represent.’ Despite what union bosses may wish, federal labor law permits workers to resign from union membership and Florida’s Right to Work law means that workers in the state have the right to cut off financial support for a union completely. That the Board majority agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the union be required to notify the thousands of affected employees through a mailing, rather than just a notice posting, is further evidence of the widespread infringement of workers’ rights by these Teamsters officials.

To read about other cases in which Teamsters Local 385 union officials ignored requests to withdraw union membership and cease paying union dues until the workers turned to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid, see the following Foundation news releases:

• Walt Disney World Employees Win Ruling Against Teamsters Union for Illegally Blocking Workers from Resigning
• Teamster Union Faces Another Federal Charge for Violating a Disney Company Driver’s Rights
• Disney Company Driver Files Federal Charge Against Teamsters Union Officials for Ignoring His Rights

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys represent pro-Right to Work Kentucky employees who are opposed to forced union dues

Frankfort, KY (June 18, 2018) – On behalf of three of Kentucky workers, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have submitted a brief in the ongoing union boss legal challenge to Kentucky’s popular new Right to Work law.

Kentucky governor Matt Bevin signed the state’s Right to Work provisions into law on January 7, 2017, making Kentucky the nation’s 27th Right to Work state to protect workers from being forced to fund a labor union as a condition of employment. Under Right to Work, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary.

The Kentucky workers, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, won a motion to intervene in the case brought by union officials against the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Although the Commonwealth is also defending the law, the workers’ rights are at stake in the case because without Right to Work they could be forced to pay union fees against their will.

A Circuit Court dismissed the union officials’ challenge in January. The Kentucky Supreme Court decided to take the case earlier this year and is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on August 10.

The brief filed recently by pro-Right to Work Bluegrass State workers urges the court to uphold the lower court’s dismissal of the case and end Big Labor’s baseless challenge to the state’s Right to Work protections for workers.

“Right to Work laws have long been upheld by appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Union bosses’ arguments against Kentucky’s Right to Work law were rejected in the past and should be rejected again by the Kentucky Supreme Court,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Not only has Kentucky’s Right to Work law ensured that Bluegrass State workers have the right to choose whether or not to fund a labor union with their hard-earned money, but the state has benefited from record investment and job creation due to the law’s passage,” continued Mix. “It’s shameful that Kentucky union bosses want to undo all that, just to restore their power to have a worker fired for refusing to pay them a portion of their paycheck.”

Washington, D.C. (June 15, 2018) – Today a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the Obama National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) opinion that union officials’ forced dues threats did not violate the rights of Hawaii hotel workers.

The case was brought by several nonmember employees at Hyatt Regency Hotel in Hawaii who received a letter from union officials demanding payment of dues for which the union had no legal claim, and threating that failure to pay would result in the money being deducted from future paychecks. In fact, the union did have the money illegally deducted.

The workers filed unfair labor practice charges with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. After the Obama NLRB asserted that the union’s demand letter was a “mistake” and therefore not illegal, Foundation staff attorneys appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and argued the case before a three judge panel.

Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals strongly rejected the NLRB’s decision as “legally unsupportable” and remanded the case back to the NLRB with orders to reconsider the decision.

National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens issued the following statement about today’s decision:

“This is an important victory against the type of coercion that independent-minded employees are all too frequently subjected to by union bosses. While it’s unfortunate that it has taken so long, we are pleased that these Foundation-aided workers are now a step closer to getting justice that the Obama Labor Board attempted to deny them.”

“The total rejection by this unanimous Appeals Court panel of NLRB Member Pearce’s majority opinion that defended blatantly unlawful union demands for payment is evidence of just how radical the Obama NLRB was when it came to allowing union officials to trample the rights of workers who don’t want to associate with a union.”