TX Airline Employee Urges High Court to Take Up Forced-Dues-for-Politics Challenge
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
IAM bosses automatically seize money for politics if workers miss tiny ‘escape window’ to opt out
IAM officials left Arthur Baisley just a small annual “escape window” to opt out of automatic dues deductions taken for union politics.
WASHINGTON, DC – Arthur Baisley, a United Airlines employee in Texas, filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case in which he is battling International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses. They are seizing dues for union political expenditures from him and his coworkers in violation of the First Amendment and the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Baisley filed the cert petition this May with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Baisley’s lawsuit challenges a union requirement that employees who choose not to join the union must opt out of funding the union’s political and ideological activities during a brief annual “escape window,” or else have money automatically seized from their paychecks for those purposes against their will.
Worker Contends Janus Standard Should Nullify ‘Opt-Out’ Language
Baisley’s attorneys argue the “opt-out” arrangement violates workers’ rights found in the RLA, and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the landmark 2018 Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, won by Foundation staff attorneys. The RLA is a federal law that governs labor relations in the railway and airline industries.
In Janus, the High Court ruled that no public worker can be coerced into paying union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The Court also held that union dues or fees can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck with his or her affirmative consent and a knowing waiver of his or her constitutional right not to pay.
Baisley’s staff attorneys extend this logic and argue that, under Janus and other Supreme Court precedents, union bosses infringe on the First Amendment rights of private sector employees under the RLA by forcing them to pay for union boss political or ideological activities without their consent. The union boss “opt-out” scheme offends this principle by forcing workers to object to dues for politics within a small “escape window” and seizing those dues as a condition of employment if they don’t opt out.
IAM Officials’ Scheme Seizes Forced-Dues-for-Politics from Non-Members
Baisley is not a member of the IAM, but is still forced to pay some union fees despite being based in the Right to Work state of Texas. The RLA preempts state Right to Work protections which make union membership and all union financial support strictly voluntary. However, under long-standing law established in Foundation-supported cases, even without Right to Work protections nonmembers cannot, as a condition of keeping their jobs, be required to pay fees for anything beyond the union’s expenses directly related to bargaining.
Baisley’s petition details the convoluted union boss-created process that workers must navigate just to prevent money from being taken from their paychecks in violation of their First Amendment rights. In Baisley’s situation, even though he sent a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 objecting to funding all union political activities, union officials only accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he had to renew his objection the next year or else be charged full union dues.
IAM Union Officials Contravened Both Janus and Long-Standing Federal Law
In addition to running afoul of the Janus First Amendment standard, Foundation staff attorneys also assert that the complicated “opt-out” scheme contravenes the RLA, which protects the right of employees under its jurisdiction to “join, organize, or assist in organizing” a union of their choice, as well as the right to abstain from all union activities.
“The sordid goal of these kinds of union ‘opt-out’ requirements is clear: trap unsuspecting workers into subsidizing union bosses’ radical political agenda without their consent and in violation of their rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Janus case that union officials must first seek the affirmative approval of public sector workers before charging them for union politics, and this case simply seeks to ensure that Mr. Baisley and all employees subject to the RLA enjoy those same basic protections.”
Multiple Units Oust Teamsters Bosses Thanks to Foundation-Backed NLRB Rule
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Unpopular Teamsters officials voted out of California, New Jersey workplaces
Reforms urged by Foundation staff attorneys eased Miguel Valle and his coworkers’ near-unanimous effort to vote out unpopular Teamsters officials, who tried to use “blocking charges,” ultimately to no avail.
WASHINGTON, DC – Workers in California and New Jersey who were previously subject to Teamsters bosses’ monopoly bargaining authority have freed themselves from unwanted union control.
The workers received free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, and benefited from rule changes at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington pushed for by the Foundation.
In California, Eliseo Haro, an employee at Los Angeles-based KWK Trucking, Inc., submitted a decertification petition with the NLRB because he and his coworkers were being ignored by Teamsters bosses. As Haro puts it, “The union never came in to talk to us, or negotiate a contract, or represent us. They disappeared.”
Haro’s petition was signed by nearly 80 percent of the workers in the 119-employee bargaining unit and called for an NLRB-supervised decertification election, in which KWK employees could vote out the unpopular union officials.
Rather than face an overwhelming defeat in the decertification election, Teamsters bosses chose to walk away. The union disclaimed interest in the unit, and NLRB Region 21 revoked Local 986’s certification as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.
New Jersey Decertification Effort Succeeds Despite Union Stall Tactics
In Cinnaminson, New Jersey, Teamsters officials did not immediately leave when a decertification petition was filed by Miguel Valle and his coworkers at a branch of XPO Logistics. Instead, Teamsters lawyers used nearly two months of unnecessary court proceedings to delay the election.
They demanded the vote be held in person at the Teamsters union hall. Foundation attorneys argued that the union lawyers’ requests were merely an effort to delay the vote. Ultimately, as expected, the NLRB’s Regional Director ruled that the election would be conducted by mail.
When Valle and his coworkers finally had their election, they voted 16-2 to remove Teamsters bosses from their workplace.
Foundation-Backed Rule Changes Reduce Needless Election Delays
For workers, just getting a decertification election is often difficult. In some cases, union bosses have created multi-year delays to stymie decertification efforts, trapping workers under union monopoly “representation” and often forced-dues payments they oppose, while they wait for a vote.
Union officials frequently attempt to delay or block decertification votes by filing “blocking charges,” unfair labor practice charges that can be used to hold up an election, even when they have nothing to do with the employees’ dissatisfaction with the union.
Union officials’ ability to use this tactic to block or delay votes has been limited by recent NLRB rulemaking, finalized in 2020. Under the NLRB’s new policy, which draws on comments filed by the National Right to Work Foundation, union charges cannot indefinitely stall employee votes, and in most instances votes occur without delay.
Additionally, as the Foundation advocated in its comments, instead of ballots being impounded for months or even years while “blocking charges” are resolved, the NLRB modified its original proposed rule so that in most cases ballots are tallied and the results are announced after employees vote.
“Union bosses can stick around for years, even when they face overwhelming opposition from rank-and-file workers, because of the legal barriers that protect union officials from decertification votes,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.
“Thanks to Foundation-backed reforms to the NLRB’s ‘blocking charge’ policy, union officials’ ability to trap workers in union ranks through legal trickery despite overwhelming opposition has been significantly curtailed.”
WV, TX Employees Defend Rights as Biden NLRB Appointee Attempts to Block Cases
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
‘Acting’ GC tries to stop prosecution of union bosses for illegal dues, secret-organizing deal
Marissa Zamora is challenging the authority of NLRB “Acting” General Counsel Peter Ohr, who was installed by Pres. Biden in an unprecedented power grab and began attacking the rights of workers opposed to associating with union officials.
WASHINGTON, DC – President Biden’s unprecedented removal of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb, and subsequent installation of forced-unionism zealot Peter S. Ohr as Robb’s “Acting” replacement, quickly threatened workers’ individual rights. It also threatened the independence of the Board itself, including in multiple ongoing cases brought with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid.
In two cases brought by Foundation staff attorneys that are already before the NLRB, Ohr is attempting to stop the Board from ruling against union officials. One is a case for Texas-based nurse Marissa Zamora, which challenges union officials’ ability to hide secret “neutrality agreements” that limit workers’ rights. The other, brought for West Virginia Kroger employee Shelby Krocker, seeks to prosecute union officials for coercing workers into signing dues checkoff authorizations that are supposed to be voluntary.
Former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who supported the workers in both of these cases, was removed by President Biden just minutes after his inauguration, despite the fact that Robb still had nearly 11 months remaining in his Senate-confirmed four-year term.
This unprecedented and possibly illegal maneuver flies in the face of the law creating the NLRB, which envisioned an independent General Counsel. Since the office of NLRB General Counsel was established in 1947, no sitting General Counsel of the NLRB has ever been fired by a president before the end of their term, even when the White House changed hands.
Zamora’s case progressed to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., after an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed a complaint that former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb had issued, prosecuting the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) for refusing to disclose to represented employees its secret “neutrality agreement.”
TX Nurse Fights Biden Appointee Move to Shield Union’s Secret Deal
Though Zamora’s Foundation-provided attorneys and Robb had both filed exceptions urging the full Board to reverse the ALJ’s decision, NLRB Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr filed a motion on February 23, 2021, seeking unilaterally to send the complaint back to the NLRB Fort Worth regional office to be dismissed.
So-called “neutrality agreements” are organizing deals struck between union officials and employers, usually without the knowledge of employees in a workplace. They frequently contain provisions that require employers to silence opposition to unionization. In Zamora’s situation, the neutrality agreement was used to limit her ability to inform her coworkers about their right to vote out the union.
Zamora’s opposition brief challenges Ohr’s attempt to kill the case. It argues that the case is already before the full Board, and she “is a full party with a right to have her pending exceptions decided by the Board.” It notes that letting Ohr shut her out at this stage would “infringe on the Board’s exclusive power to adjudicate violations of” federal labor law.
Further, the brief contends that because of Robb’s unlawful removal, Ohr lacks the legal authority to even ask the NLRB to end the case. Allowing “the President to fire the General Counsel at will would do irreparable damage to the NLRB’s function as an independent agency,” the brief says.
In Krocker’s case, NLRB Region 6 in Pittsburgh initially dismissed Krocker’s charge challenging United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) checkoff cards which falsely stated that they “MUST BE SIGNED.”
West Virginia Kroger Employee Stands Up to Union-Allied Ohr
Foundation attorneys successfully appealed this dismissal to General Counsel Peter Robb, who sustained the charge and ordered NLRB Region 6 to issue a complaint prosecuting UFCW Local 400 for the violation.
In fact, Robb ordered Region 6 to issue the complaint on several additional grounds, including maintenance of a checkoff that prohibited employees from ending dues deductions after the expiration of a contract.
After an ALJ declined to rule that UFCW Local 400 officials violated the law with their “MUST BE SIGNED” demands and other unlawful provisions, Krocker’s Foundation staff attorneys and General Counsel Robb both appealed the case to the NLRB. Their appeals have been fully briefed before the Board since September.
After Ohr’s appointment, Region 6 entered into an inadequate informal settlement over Krocker’s objection and filed a motion to send the case back to Region 6.
Biden Appointee Shielding Union Boss Privileges
Krocker’s opposition to that motion argues, as does Zamora’s, that her case is already pending before the full NLRB and that Ohr lacks the authority to divert it away from the Board’s judgment.
“‘Acting’ NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr’s unabated attacks on Foundation cases seeking to defend workers’ individual rights clearly show how imminent a threat our cases are to union bosses’ coercive and greedy behavior,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Ohr demonstrates repeatedly that he has no problem with turning the NLRB into the Biden Administration’s tool for stifling the rights of independent-minded workers who dare to stand up to Biden’s union boss allies.”
Chicago Educators Press Seventh Circuit, Supreme Court to Stop Anti-Janus Schemes
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. For updates in the case for Troesch and Nkemdi, click here. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Teachers continue battling Chicago teacher union “escape period,” file brief with Supreme Court
“I want people’s constitutional rights, the right to work to be established,” Ifeoma Nkemdi told the Chicago Tribune in 2020 about her and Joanne Troesch’s battle against CTU union boss-devised schemes to trap teachers in forced dues.
CHICAGO, IL – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) educators Ifeoma Nkemdi and Joanne Troesch are appealing to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals their class-action civil rights lawsuit against the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and The Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board) for unconstitutional dues seizures.
The suit challenges a union policy that blocks teachers from exercising their First Amendment right under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision to stop payments to the union outside of the month of August. It also seeks refunds of all dues seized from dissenting educators by the Board.
In Janus, which was argued by one of Troesch and Nkemdi’s Foundation staff attorneys, the High Court struck down mandatory union fees as a violation of government employees’ First Amendment rights. The Court ruled that taking any dues without a government worker’s affirmative consent violates the First Amendment, and further made it clear that these rights cannot be restricted absent a clear and knowing waiver.
The appeal comes after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Troesch and Nkemdi’s lawsuit on February 25, 2021. The court sided with CTU and Board officials, ruling they didn’t violate Janus by forbidding the two educators from exercising their First Amendment right to cut off union dues except for one month a year. This prompted Foundation attorneys to appeal the case to the Seventh Circuit.
CTU Bosses Pilfered from Paychecks Even after Educators Opted out
Troesch and Nkemdi’s lawsuit explains that they “did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support” the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019. The pair independently discovered their First Amendment Janus rights while they were researching how to exercise their right to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered in October 2019, the lawsuit notes. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.
Both educators received no response until November of that year. CTU officials then confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the educators’ paychecks “until September 1, 2020.” CTU bosses relied on the fact that Troesch and Nkemdi had not submitted their letters within a union boss-created “escape period,” which limits when teachers can exercise their First Amendment right to end dues deductions.
Troesch and Nkemdi contend that CTU and Board officials’ attempt to curb employees’ right to stop dues deductions with an “escape period,” and the Board’s seizure of dues after they dissociated from the union, both violate the First Amendment. Their lawsuit seeks to make the CTU union and the Board stop enforcing the “escape period,” and notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end the deduction of union dues at any time and “retroactively exercise that right.”
Troesch and Nkemdi’s efforts to defeat union boss-concocted “escape period” schemes don’t stop at their lawsuit. The pair submitted an amicus brief in Belgau v. Inslee, which is currently pending on a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court.
New Legal Brief Backs SCOTUS Challenge to Union “Escape Period” Scheme
Belgau involves a group of Washington State employees, led by Melissa Belgau, who are fighting similar policies imposed by Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials and the State of Washington.
University of California Santa Barbara employee Cara O’Callaghan, Maumee City (Ohio) School District employee Chelsea Kolacki, and Springfield (Ohio) Local School District employee Michelle Cymbor also joined this brief. All of them have been subjected to First Amendment violations similar to those at issue in Belgau and the Chicago educators’ case.
Foundation staff attorneys provided free legal aid in filing the brief, and currently represent public servants in at least 14 cases where union officials have tried to confine their First Amendment Janus rights to an “escape period.”
“Each day that the courts fail to fully enforce Janus is another day that union bosses are allowed to seize the hard-earned money of dissenting public servants in clear violation of their First Amendment rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation is proud to stand with Ms. Troesch and Ms. Nkemdi, and will continue to defend all educators who simply want to serve their students and community without being forced to subsidize union activities.”
Photo Credit: Terrence Antonio James/Chicago Tribune/TCA
Puerto Rico Workers Ask Court to Stop Union Officials’ Illegal Dues Cover-up
Union bosses threaten healthcare unless employees ‘authorize’ years of improperly seized dues
In an attempt to cover up their misdeeds, union bosses threatened to axe Jose Ramos’ (left) and Jose Cotto’s healthcare if they didn’t retroactively OK years of unconstitutional dues deductions.
SAN JUAN, PR – Employees of the University of Puerto Rico have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the University of Puerto Rico Workers Union. The motion asks the court to block and reverse union officials’ efforts to bar health insurance from employees who refuse to sign away their First Amendment rights.
It comes as part of the employees’ class action lawsuit against the university’s president in his official capacity and the union for illegally seizing dues from workers’ paychecks without their authorization. The suit was originally filed in May 2020 with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The forced-dues seizures infringe on employees’ rights as recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the High Court ruled that requiring public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment, and further held that union fees can only be taken from public employees with their affirmative waiver of the right not to pay.
Union Threats: Approve Past, Present and Future Dues or Lose Healthcare
Antonio Mendez and Jose Ramos have been employed by the University as maintenance workers since 1997 and 1996, respectively. From then, their complaint says, university and union officials “have regarded Ramos and Mendez as members of the Union” and seized dues from their paychecks, despite neither ever having signed a union membership or dues deduction authorization form.
On December 28, 2020, the lawsuit was amended to include two additional plaintiffs, Jose Cotto and Igneris Perez, and to challenge a recent attempt by union officials to coerce university workers into signing a document retroactively approving all previously deducted dues and consenting to an unspecified number of future deductions. According to the complaint, employees who do not comply with union officials’ demands that they sign this document lose access to the union-administered healthcare plan which is paid for by the employer.
On December 30, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to block union officials’ efforts to force employees to choose between losing their healthcare and retroactively agreeing to union dues deductions taken in violation of their rights.
Union Bosses’ Forced- Dues Scheme Violates First Amendment Rights
The employees’ lawsuit contends that union and university officials violated the First Amendment by seizing dues from employee paychecks without written authorization, and by requiring employees to become full union members in violation of longstanding precedent that predates Janus. The lawsuit additionally seeks an order forbidding further enforcement of the unconstitutional scheme and requiring the union to refund to employees dues that were seized illegally “within the . . . 15-year statute of limitations period for breach of contract.”
“For years, University of Puerto Rico Workers Union bosses have gotten away with taking dues out of the pockets of those they claim to represent without ever getting their permission,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses were caught red-handed violating not only workers’ rights under Janus, but precedents going back decades against mandatory union membership.
“Now, rather than making workers whole, these union officials are doubling down on their illegal acts by taking away the healthcare of anyone who doesn’t retroactively ‘authorize’ years of unconstitutional union dues deductions.”
Ohio Municipal Employee Challenges Deceitful Unconstitutional Dues Deductions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
IUOE bosses’ scheme renames forced-fee payments clearly outlawed in Janus decision
Veteran Foundation staff attorney William Messenger successfully argued Janus over two years ago, but union bosses are still concocting schemes to circumvent it. Timothy Crane is now fighting a particularly flagrant example.
CINCINNATI, OH – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, City of Hamilton employee Timothy Crane is suing International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 20 union officials and the City of Hamilton for seizing a compulsory fee from his paycheck in violation of his First Amendment rights.
His complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, contends that union bosses are infringing on his rights under the Janus v. AFSCME decision by forcing him to pay a so-called “agreement administration fee” equal to more than 90 percent of full union dues as a condition of his employment.
In the 2018 Foundation-won Janus decision, the High Court ruled that no public worker can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The Court also held that union dues or fees can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee clearly and affirmatively waives his or her right not to pay. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court majority that “such a waiver cannot be presumed” by union or state officials.
Even After City Employee Exercised His Janus Rights, Union Honchos Seized Fees
Crane sent letters to IUOE union officials in both August and September of 2020, attempting to exercise his First Amendment Janus right to end dues deductions from his paycheck. After sending these two letters, however, he discovered that an “agreement administration fee” was now being taken from his pay by the City at the behest of IUOE union bosses.
Crane’s complaint contends that this is just a so-called “agency fee” — compulsory union payments charged to employees who refrain from formal union membership that were definitively outlawed by the Janus v. AFSCME decision — masquerading under a different name. The suit urges the District Court to declare it unconstitutional for IUOE Local 20 and the City of Hamilton to force him to pay this compulsory union fee. Crane’s lawsuit also seeks a refund of all money that the union has illegally taken from his paycheck under the unconstitutional arrangement.
Chain of Foundation-backed Janus Victories for Ohio Workers Likely to Continue
Since Janus was handed down by the Supreme Court, Foundation staff attorneys have already won favorable settlements in four cases for Buckeye State public workers who have challenged illegal union-created restrictions on the exercise of Janus First Amendment rights. In a July 2020 settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by four state workers, nearly 30,000 Ohio public employees were freed from an “escape-period” scheme imposed by Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union chiefs, which limited to just a handful of days every few years the time in which a public employee could exercise his or her Janus rights.
“IUOE bosses, who may have thought they were going to trick employees into funding their agenda against their will with this blatantly unconstitutional scheme, have now been caught red-handed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Rank-and-file workers like Mr. Crane now see that IUOE officials are far more interested in keeping hard-earned employee cash flowing into their coffers than in respecting the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.”
LaJeunesse continued: “The string of Foundation victories for independent-minded Buckeye State employees who just want to exercise their First Amendment rights is not going to end here.”
Oregon ABC Cameraman Wins Ruling Against Illegal Dues-Seizing NABET Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Administrative Law Judge orders union boss to refund all illegally taken money
He’s done playing games: After cameraman Jeremy Brown sought free legal aid from the Foundation, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge ruled against NABET bosses for violating his Beck rights for years.
PORTLAND, OR – Jeremy Brown, a “daily hire” cameraman for ABC who had worked on and off for the company since 1999, would not have thought that a new president taking over the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Local 51 union would mean anything for him when he resumed work in 2016. After all, he had worked for ABC for nearly three years, and the union had never even contacted him and he had never joined the union.
Then, in 2019, he received a series of letters from the new union honcho, demanding he pay nearly $10,000 in initiation fees and so-called “back-agency dues.” Brown quickly obtained free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys and asserted his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
Beck prevents private sector union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from formal union membership to pay for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenses. Moreover, it requires union officials to provide information on the union’s fee calculation and expenditures to non-members.
New NABET Chief Demanded Thousands, Then Snubbed Cameraman’s Beck Rights
Because Brown works primarily in non-Right to Work states, he can be legally forced as a condition of employment to pay some fees to union bosses.
After receiving the baffling, belated dues demands, Brown emailed the new union president, Carrie Biggs-Adams, asking for clarification. He also exercised his Beck rights by objecting “to the collection and expenditure by the union of a fee for any purpose other than” certain bargaining activities. Believing that he would be fired if he did not agree to pay union dues, he filled out a form authorizing NABET to take full dues from his paycheck, but did so under duress.
Biggs-Adams ignored several follow-ups by Brown. According to legal documents, she “believed Local 51 had no obligation to [reply to Brown] because Beck objections” are handled only by the union’s national headquarters under NABET rules. Even so, she never apprised Brown of NABET’s national mailing address, or provided him the dues reduction or any of the information mandated by Beck.
In December, Brown won a decision from a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) about the union’s Beck rights violations. The ALJ’s decision holds the NABET union violated Brown’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its officials’ omissions and the failure to reduce his dues.
The ALJ ordered NABET Local 51 to provide Brown with “a good faith determination of the reduced dues and fees objectors must pay,” and “reimburse Brown for all dues and fees collected” beyond what is required under Beck, with interest.
“While this decision vindicated Mr. Brown’s legal rights, it also demonstrates why every American worker deserves the protection of a Right to Work law to shield them from union boss threats to pay up or be fired,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
Workers Nationwide Press NLRB to Scrap Policy Blocking Right to Vote Out Unions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation cases contend ‘contract bar’ must be eliminated to protect employee freedom
Foundation staff attorneys are assisting Delaware poultry workers in challenging UFCW bosses’ attempts to use the “contract bar” to trap them in union ranks.
WASHINGTON, DC – Foundation attorneys in January filed a Request for Review to the full National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. The Request defends the right of Virginia Transdev workers to have a vote to remove unpopular Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 2 bosses from power at their workplace.
The Transdev employees, who work at the Fairfax Connector bus service in Northern Virginia, now join Foundation-backed workers in Delaware and Puerto Rico, all of whom are urging the NLRB to eliminate the “contract bar.” That is a non-statutory NLRB policy which forbids employees from exercising their right to vote out an unpopular union in an NLRB-supervised “decertification election” for up to three years after their employer and union finalize a monopoly bargaining contract.
Foundation attorneys point out in each of these cases that the “contract bar” appears nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law the NLRB is charged with enforcing, and is merely the result of past union boss-friendly decisions by the Board. They also argue that the bar undermines workers’ basic right under the NLRA to remove unions that lack majority support.
“The ‘contract bar’ undermines the fundamental objective of federal labor law: Employee free choice. It makes rank-and-file employees prisoners of an unpopular union, with no way out for up to three years,” commented National Right Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This inevitably creates an environment in which, as these employees can certainly attest, it’s impossible to hold self-serving union bosses accountable because workers are denied the right to vote them out.”
Unpopular OPEIU Bosses Went Behind Workers’ Backs to Sign Contract
The petitioner in the Transdev workers’ case, Amir Daoud, submitted a petition on November 10, 2020, signed by the necessary number of his coworkers to trigger a “decertification election” in his workplace. This was after news had gotten around that an OPEIU union agent had told some employees in October he had “negotiated a new agreement” with Transdev management and “‘intended’ to sign it without a ratification vote.” Workers had already voted down an earlier union boss-promoted monopoly bargaining contract in June.
Foundation attorneys filed a Request for Review, which notes that the union agent didn’t inform Daoud and his coworkers of when he planned to approve the new contract — until after Daoud filed the petition. The new contract was signed by union agents on October 30 and Transdev representatives on October 31.
NLRB Region 5 in Baltimore dismissed Daoud and his coworkers’ decertification petition on December 22, ruling that the “contract bar” applied because the employees’ petition was submitted just after the new contract was signed, even though the employees had no way of knowing whether or when that signing would occur.
This prompted Daoud to ask the NLRB in Washington to review the case. Because Daoud recently accepted a job with Transdev outside the OPEIU’s monopoly bargaining control, the Request for Review asks the NLRB to recognize his coworker Sheila Currie as the new petitioner to represent the interests of the workers who signed the decertification petition.
The Request exposes the arbitrariness of the “contract bar,” pointing out that the NLRB Regional Director applied it “merely because the Union ‘won the race’ and signed the contract ten days” before Daoud submitted the petition, even though the petition clearly demonstrated the employees’ interest in voting the union out.
VA and Puerto Rico Cases Follow Groundbreaking Effort by DE Poultry Workers
The Virginia Transdev employees, and a Puerto Rico armored transit guard who submitted a similar Request for Review on behalf of his coworkers with Foundation aid in January, are now battling the “contract bar” like Delaware Mountaire Farms poultry worker Oscar Cruz Sosa and his coworkers. For almost a year now, Cruz Sosa and his fellow employees have been fighting United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union bosses’ attempts to use the “contract bar” to block their valid petition for a decertification vote. The Mountaire employees are now waiting for the NLRB to issue a ruling on their case.
In that case, UFCW officials claim that the “contract bar” should apply to bar any elections at Mountaire, despite an NLRB Regional Director’s decision allowing the vote because the union contract contains an invalid forced-dues clause.
When the UFCW bosses asked the full NLRB to review the Region’s order allowing the election, Cruz Sosa’s attorneys filed a brief urging that, if the Board granted review, it should use the opportunity to review the entire non-statutory “contract bar” policy. The Board is now doing just that. The UFCW union bosses are even arguing that the impounded ballots already cast by Mountaire workers should be destroyed, claiming the election should never have been held.
The Requests for Review submitted by Foundation staff attorneys for the Puerto Rico guard and Virginia Transdev employees each request that the NLRB should either grant review or least hold the case until a decision is issued in Cruz Sosa’s case.
Las Vegas Security Guards Win $4,200 in Case Challenging Illegal Dues Seizures
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
SPFPA officials rushed monopoly bargaining contract in attempt to trap workers in forced dues
“You can stand up to the union and not fail and not have fear of retaliation,” security guard Justin Stephens told the Las Vegas Review-Journal about his and his coworkers’ victory.
LAS VEGAS, NV – Dozens of Las Vegas security guards employed by North American Security won a settlement last October against the Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union, which they had charged in April with illegally seizing dues from their paychecks. The guards received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation.
SPFPA union officials must now refund more than $4,200 to the security guards, whose timely requests to resign from union membership and cease dues deductions were wrongfully rejected by union officials who hastily extended their monopoly bargaining agreement with the guards’ employer.
Union Officials Secretly Struck Contract after Guards Voiced Dissatisfaction
According to guard Justin Stephens’ April 2020 charge filed at Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Phoenix, SPFPA officials extended the bargaining contract with North American Security on January 31, 2020. The extension occurred one day after Stephens and the vast majority of his fellow employees at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas sent letters to the union stating that they no longer wanted it as the monopoly bargaining agent in their workplace.
The charge explained that Stephens later submitted a batch of letters to SPFPA officials in which he and his fellow employees tried to exercise their rights to resign union membership and stop dues deductions from their paychecks. These letters were sent within what the employees believed to be the contract’s window for exercising their right to cut off dues payments.
However, the charge asserted, the union “did not acknowledge the timely revocation the employees made on the anniversary” of the contract, ostensibly because the union officials’ hurried contract extension eliminated any opportunity for employees to cut off union dues before the existing contract’s March 31 expiration.
SPFPA bosses kept collecting full union dues “from all non-member bargaining unit employees” in violation of their right under the National Labor Relations Act to refrain from union activities and support, according to the charge. Stephens’ charge also asserted that the union’s sudden extension of the monopoly bargaining contract after the workers notified the union about their opposition amounted to “an apparent attempt to avoid a decertification” vote to remove the union.
Because Nevada has enacted Right to Work protections for employees, union bosses are additionally forbidden by state law from requiring any employee to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.
The settlement requires SPFPA officials to process any timely resignations by security guards and notify North American Security to cease dues deductions from those whose resignations they have already processed.
Foundation Wins Refunds of Unlawful Dues Seized from Dozens of Guards
SPFPA bosses must also return all dues seized from Stephens’ and his coworkers’ paychecks in violation of their rights. In the future, the settlement stipulates, union officials must always “accept and timely process” resignations and requests to cut off dues.
“I want people to see this and see that it’s possible,” Stephens told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in a story about his case. “You can stand up to the union and not fail and not have fear of retaliation.”
“It’s good news that Mr. Stephens and his hardworking colleagues have gotten back dues that were illegally taken from them by SPFPA union bosses who have demonstrated they are more interested in stuffing their coffers with union dues than respecting the wishes of the rank-and-file workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LeJeunesse. “This type of legal trickery used by union bosses to stay in power despite the objections of most workers shows why the NLRB should eliminate its numerous policies that block workers from removing an unwanted union.”
“Ultimately, the root of this problem is the federal labor law which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining powers, allowing them to force their so-called ‘representation’ on workers who don’t want it and believe they would be better off without it,” added LaJeunesse.
“You can stand up to the union and not fail and not have fear of retaliation,” security guard Justin Stephens told the Las Vegas Review-Journal about his and his coworkers’ victory.
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Flight Attendant Sues Transport Union for Religious Discrimination
Please stow your religious objections: TWU union bosses forced Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post to fund the union in violation of her religious beliefs and federal law.
KNOXVILLE, TN – Allegiant Air flight attendant Annlee Post filed a federal lawsuit in November against Transport Workers Union of America Local 577 (TWU) because the union refused to accommodate her religious beliefs. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Post is a Christian, and she objects to funding the TWU on religious grounds. As recognized in the 2015 EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Supreme Court decision, Post is not required to satisfy any special requirements to merit religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To exercise her rights, Post sent two letters to union officials making them aware of her objection and asking that her dues payments be redirected to charity.
EEOC Issues “Right to Sue” Letter to Union Objector
When TWU officials refused this request, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the union.
The EEOC was unable to resolve Post’s charge, but it issued a “Right to Sue” letter in August 2020, allowing her to file a federal lawsuit against the union to protect her rights. Post then filed a complaint in federal court alleging TWU officials illegally discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her and threatening to revoke her bidding privileges.
Bidding privileges control a flight attendant’s ability to schedule trips, work, vacations and days off. Post asked the court for an order stopping TWU officials from requiring her and other employees to pay union fees that violate their sincere religious beliefs.
Post’s lawsuit also alleges that union officials violated the United States Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, which require union officials to follow specific procedures to demand forced dues payments. The union did not follow those procedures here.
Union officials did not provide a notice of how the forced-fee amount was calculated and an audit of the union’s financial records. Nor did they give a notice of the procedure to challenge the fee amount.
Federal Law Prevents Union Threats to Workplace Privileges
Even though she lives in Tennessee, which has enacted Right to Work protections so workers who object to union membership can freely abstain from funding union activities for any reason, Post is subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because she works for an airline.
The RLA overrides state Right to Work laws and allows union officials to compel union fees, but only “as a condition of continued employment.” The RLA does not permit forced-dues payments based on any other condition — such as bidding privileges. Post’s Foundation staff attorneys argue that TWU’s monopoly bargaining agreement with Allegiant is invalid because it requires dues payments to maintain bidding privileges, whereas payment “as a condition of continued employment” is the only legal forced unionism agreement under the RLA.
“Annlee Post and others like her should not have to choose between privileges at work and their religious beliefs,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “TWU bosses knew about Ms. Post’s objections, but refused to accommodate them as longstanding federal law requires. They instead threatened to take away her bidding privileges, simply because she would not fund their organization in violation of her religious faith.
“This case is a reminder of why no worker should be forced to fund a union with which he or she disagrees, no matter whether their objection is religious or for any other reason,” Semmens said.
