Dallas, TX (August 8, 2014) – An Oakland, California-based Southwest Airline (NYSE: LUV) flight attendant has filed a federal lawsuit against a local union for discriminating against him for resigning his union membership.

With free legal assistance from staff attorneys provided by the National Right to Work Foundation, Kent Hand, a flight attendant for 12 years, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In October 2013, Hand resigned his membership in the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556.

Shortly thereafter, Hand received a phone call from a TWU Local 556 union official informing him that he was being removed from the Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) team because he resigned his union membership.

The CISM team is a joint employer-union funded, peer-to-peer counselling group for flight attendants who wish to speak confidentially to other flight attendants regarding work-related difficulties. CISM team members are paid during annual training and on-call days, receive highly specialized training, and have the opportunity to meet Southwest senior executives in exchange for volunteering in the program.

The suit alleges TWU Local 556 union officials acted in bad faith and violated their duty of fair representation by punishing Hand for resigning his union membership.

“TWU Local 556 union officials retaliated against Mr. Hand for resigning his union membership,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “No worker should be punished for exercising their statutory or constitutional right to refrain from union membership.”

National Right to Work Supreme Court Victory Forces SEIU to Abandon Forced Dues Demands in Illinois, Minnesota, & Massachusetts

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys build on Harris precedent to aid home-based personal care providers forced into union ranks

Washington, DC (August 5, 2014) – In the wake of a National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court victory in June, government union bosses from across the country are now abandoning their forced dues demands on home-based personal care and childcare providers.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a case concerning whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit litigated by Foundation staff attorneys and filed by eight Illinois care providers after Illinois Governors signed executive orders rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union representation.

The Court struck down the scheme, ruling that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling renders unconstitutional similar homecare unionization schemes in effect in at least 14 other states.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (August 5, 2014) – In the wake of a National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court victory in June, government union bosses from across the country are now abandoning their forced dues demands on home-based personal care and childcare providers.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a case concerning whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit litigated by Foundation staff attorneys and filed by eight Illinois care providers after Illinois Governors signed executive orders rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union representation.

The Court struck down the scheme, ruling that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling renders unconstitutional similar homecare unionization schemes in effect in at least 14 other states.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials last week notified Illinois home-based childcare providers that they will not demand $10 million in annual forced dues payments from the providers.

In Minnesota, after several providers represented by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a federal lawsuit last week, SEIU bosses also said that they will not force personal care providers who care for family members to pay forced dues.

Then, late Friday, SEIU officials notified Massachusetts home childcare providers that they will no longer be forced to pay union fees. Massachusetts providers represented by Foundation staff attorneys had filed a federal suit challenging the SEIU unionization scheme in April.

“Thanks to a National Right to Work Foundation-won victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, SEIU bosses across the country are being forced to back down from their forced union dues demands,” stated Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “SEIU officials are no longer empowered to siphon off money that is designated for low-income and special needs children and adults who receive care at home.”

While Harris is already freeing tens of thousands of homecare providers from forced dues ranks, Foundation attorneys continue the legal battle to end such forced dues schemes and ensure the return of illegally-seized forced dues. In addition, they have brought suits for providers to stop state schemes imposing union officials as monopoly representatives of homecare providers who don’t want and never asked for union so-called “representation.”

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit issued a ruling in the Minnesota childcare provider’s lawsuit challenging a state law designed to forcibly unionize them. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in the wake of today’s ruling:

“We disagree with the court’s limited ruling holding that the childcare providers’ lawsuit is not ripe until a unionization election is requested. However, we are encouraged that the court’s reasoning further legitimizes the personal homecare providers’ lawsuit filed earlier this week.

“The court’s ruling today means that the homecare providers’ suit is indeed ripe for review because those providers are under imminent threat of unionization, with the unionization election starting tomorrow.

“No homecare personal or childcare provider should be forced to associate with a state’s hand-picked political representative. Jennifer Parrish and other Minnesota childcare providers intend to refile their lawsuit if and when AFSCME union officials push to force childcare providers into union ranks.”

Both groups of providers are receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld all provisions of Act 10. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in the wake of today’s ruling:

“We applaud the court’s ruling upholding Act 10. The court relied on principles established in Foundation-supported U.S. Supreme Court victories which have held that union officials have no constitutional power to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

“The court’s decision strikes a mighty blow for individual workers who do not want anything to do with an unwanted union in their workplace. Wisconsin government union officials should now understand that the constitutionality of Right to Work laws has long been a settled question. We’re happy to report that the court rejected the union lawyers’ frivolous arguments and ensured that thousands of Wisconsin’s civil servants will continue to labor free from union coercion.

“No Wisconsin public worker should ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Now it is time for Wisconsin’s legislature to protect that right for Wisconsin’s private-sector workers and pass a private-sector Right to Work law.”

Air Traffic Controller Wins Federal Settlement from Government Union Bosses After Overt Religious Discrimination

Union had worker transferred to force him to work on Saturday, violating his religious beliefs and threatening his livelihood

Potomac, VA (July 29, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee has won a federal settlement from a government union that used his religious beliefs to punish him for resigning his union membership.

Last year, Matthew Gray, a Seventh-day Adventist who works at the FAA’s Potomac facility, filed a federal charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority against the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) union.

Gray filed the charge after he was informed by a union official that he was being removed from his detail and transferred to another in which he would have to work on Saturdays as punishment for resigning from the union. Gray resigned union membership because he believes union membership is contrary to his faith.

Click here to read the full release.

Potomac, VA (July 29, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee has won a federal settlement from a government union that used his religious beliefs to punish him for resigning his union membership.

Last year, Matthew Gray, a Seventh-day Adventist who works at the FAA’s Potomac facility, filed a federal charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority against the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) union.

Gray filed the charge after he was informed by a union official that he was being removed from his detail and transferred to another in which he would have to work on Saturdays as punishment for resigning from the union. Gray resigned union membership because he believes union membership is contrary to his faith.

A central doctrine of Gray’s church is weekly worship, and not working, on Saturday. Gray’s old position allowed him to avoid any scheduling conflict between his work and religious obligations. By removing him from his old detail, however, NATCA union officials effectively forced Gray to work on Saturday, find a replacement or take leave every week, or lose his job.

Gray told union officials that he only resigned because of his religious beliefs, and that the transfer would cause a scheduling conflict with his religious obligations. NATCA ignored his objections and went through with the transfer request at the union bosses’ demand.

Instead of standing up to the union, Gray’s manager told him that he was complying with the union’s transfer request because he “no longer represent[s] the best interests of NATCA.”

Gray also filed a charge against the union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which has found cause to believe that the union violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That charge is still pending.

“It’s unconscionable that an independent-minded worker was punished for attempting to exercise his deeply-held religious beliefs,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t face retaliation for exercising their right not to join or affiliate with a labor union.”

Minnesota Homecare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

SEIU seeks to push home-based personal care providers into forced-dues ranks against their will

Minneapolis, MN (July 28, 2014) – Today, a group of home-based personal care providers who care for family members filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law that authorizes forcible unionization of the state’s home-based personal care providers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Teri Bierman and eight other providers from around the state filed the suit against Governor Mark Dayton and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The homecare providers’ suit requests an injunction halting implementation of a law intended to designate SEIU union officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state. The SEIU seeks to unionize the providers via a mail-in vote starting August 1.

Click here to read the full release.

Minneapolis, MN (July 28, 2014) – Today, a group of home-based personal care providers who care for family members filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law that authorizes forcible unionization of the state’s home-based personal care providers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Teri Bierman and eight other providers from around the state filed the suit against Governor Mark Dayton and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The homecare providers’ suit requests an injunction halting implementation of a law intended to designate SEIU union officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state. The SEIU seeks to unionize the providers via a mail-in vote starting August 1.

The suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn, a Foundation case challenging whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The Court held that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling renders unconstitutional similar homecare unionization schemes in effect in at least 13 other states.

Meanwhile, a federal lawsuit brought by Minnesota home-based childcare providers seeking to overturn a similar state law is pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.

“This scheme, which forces relatives taking care of persons with disabilities into union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Dayton is picking the SEIU as the lobbyists for Minnesota’s personal care providers as payback for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

Obama NLRB Excludes Worker Input in Case that Seeks to Restrict Workers’ Ability to Remove Unwanted Union Bosses

General Counsel seeks to eliminate employees’ ability to use a majority petition to end employer recognition of an unsupported union

San Francisco, CA (July 21 2014) – In a precedent-setting federal case, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director has denied a local restaurant worker’s motion to intervene to stop the federal agency from foisting unwanted union representation back on her workplace after she and her coworkers attempted to remove the union.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Scoma’s of Sausalito restaurant worker Georgina Canche will appeal the NLRB regional director’s order to an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Click here to read the full release.