Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
À la Janus, religious objector to union affiliation is free from all forced payments
The landmark Janus SCOTUS case, argued by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, profoundly strengthened public employees’ First Amendment rights. But it appears the impact of the case is just beginning.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have been trailblazers in scoring legal protections for independent-minded workers who oppose joining or paying dues to a union on religious grounds. Over the years, Foundation attorneys have helped workers from a variety of faiths secure religious accommodations to forced-dues payment.
Earlier this year, Foundation attorneys achieved a breakthrough in this area of the law. In their case for Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-based employee of security company Allied Universal who sought a faith-based exemption from paying dues to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate, Foundation attorneys won an unprecedented settlement. It not only frees Ross from any requirement to pay dues or fees to the union, but also frees him from any obligation to pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity, which has been the dominant form of accommodation in the past for religious objectors.
Union Demanded Religious Worker Violate Faith, Breaking Federal Laws
Ross is a Christian who opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs disallowed union membership and that he needed an accommodation. In addition to ignoring that request, in 2022 his employer told him that union membership was mandatory and “demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the [union], and pay union dues,” according to filings in his case.
Ross fought back by filing federal discrimination charges against the union and Allied Universal at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as by filing unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires unions and employers to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits mandatory union membership, even in non-Right to Work states like California.
Ross’ Foundation-backed legal battle against SEIU and Allied Universal continued into 2023, when Foundation attorneys appealed a specious NLRB decision which attempted to dispose of the issue as a mere administrative error on the employer’s part. Finally, in 2024, the SEIU and Allied Universal backed down and settled the case, conceding a full religious accommodation to Ross.
The terms of the settlement state that Allied Universal and SEIU “will not enforce the collective bargaining agreement’s union membership and fee provisions against Ross . . . [and] will not force Ross to pay any union fees while he is employed by Allied Universal.”
In an article in the Baylor Law Review following the settlement, Foundation attorneys Bruce Cameron and Blaine Hutchison argue that, in light of the Foundation’s landmark 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME, religious accommodations like Ross’ should be the standard for future cases involving religious objectors to union membership and dues payment. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits forcing public sector employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Janus Shows Right Way to Accommodate Religious Employees
The article points out that the Supreme Court in Janus knocked down the so-called “free-rider” and “labor-peace” arguments that union lawyers typically use to justify forcing religious objectors to pay dues money to a charity. In Janus, the article explains, “The Court showed that nonmembers need not pay fees to compensate the union or to prevent labor unrest.”
The payment-to-charity scheme simply “punishes individuals for following their faith,” the article says. “Janus shows the proper solution: religious objectors need not pay any forced union fees.”
“Mr. Ross fought bravely with help from Foundation attorneys, and has opened up a new horizon for religious employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The idea that union officials can force religious objectors to make any kind of payment clearly runs counter to America’s core ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of association, and it’s high time that courts recognize more robust protections for those rights.
“However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious in nature or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose,” Mix added.
Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Jersey ouster of UAW comes as union bosses wage aggressive nationwide campaign
Fain’s Bane: Michael Oliver and his Nissan parts distribution coworkers ousted UAW officials even after they’d tried to force a new contract on the workplace. UAW President Shawn Fain had no response after Oliver’s victory.
SOMERSET, NJ – United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses this April and May continued marching forward their multi-million-dollar campaign to get auto workers from traditionally nonunion plants under their control. They’ve met with only mixed success — most recently a union election at Mercedes-Benz’s large plant in Vance, Alabama, saw nearly 600 more workers vote against UAW control than for it.
Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys helped a large group of New Jersey employees oust the UAW after they’d seen the union’s agenda up close. Michael Oliver and his coworkers successfully exercised their right to vote UAW bosses out of a Nissan parts distribution plant in Somerset, New Jersey. Nearly 70% of the workers who participated in the “decertification vote” at the Nissan facility voted to send the Detroit-based union packing.
“UAW union officials were far more concerned with hoarding power in the workplace than communicating with or listening to workers,” Oliver told The Detroit News of his and his colleagues’ effort. “They kept us completely in the dark about contract negotiations, and treated anyone in the workplace who opposed their agenda or questioned their leadership with a huge amount of arrogance, contempt, and even intimidation.”
Oliver submitted a decertification petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in early April, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at his workplace to remove the union. The petition contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger a vote under NLRB rules. The vote took place on April 24.
Even in the midst of widespread worker opposition, UAW officials tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to manipulate NLRB processes in order to remain in power at the Nissan parts distribution plant. Shortly after Oliver submitted the decertification petition, UAW union officials announced that they had ratified a new union contract with Nissan management.
The NLRB’s dubious “contract bar” allows union bosses in many cases to quash decertification efforts for generally up to three years while a union contract is in effect. However, the contract bar didn’t stop Oliver and his coworkers’ requested election, because union officials weren’t able to reach a monopoly bargaining agreement with Nissan before Oliver filed his petition.
Shawn Fain Lost for Words After Nissan Workers Oust UAW Union
Oliver and his coworkers’ endeavor caught UAW President Shawn Fain off-guard. Fain told The Detroit News “I don’t have a response, because that kind of happened under the radar” and claimed that the company somehow played an illicit role in influencing the workers to kick out the union. However, there’s no evidence to support that claim, and UAW officials filed no objections to the election despite having ample time to do so.
Philly-Area Dometic Workers Fight Illegal UAW Strike Threats
Meanwhile, UAW chieftains at the Philadelphia-area plant of auto accessory manufacturer Dometic are facing new worker-filed federal charges for sending a mass text to employees illegally threatening their employment if they exercise their right to continue working during a strike.
These new charges come after several Dometic employees already hit the UAW with charges accusing the union of imposing unlawful disciplinary procedures on them simply because they resigned membership in the union.
Mario Coccie, the Dometic worker who filed the latest round of federal charges against the UAW with free Foundation legal aid, was also in the group of workers who initially charged the union with illegally penalizing workers who resign membership. “The information in this text reveals union officials’ real intentions, which is to hurt anyone willing to stand up for themselves,” commented Coccie. “What is happening in this case is completely unjust.”
“With UAW union bosses spending millions of dollars to expand their influence to nonunion facilities around the country, it’s important to remember that workers who have experienced UAW officials’ ‘representation’ often end up resenting it,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Nissan employees in New Jersey and Dometic workers in Pennsylvania are prime examples of this, and their situations demonstrate above all that workers must have more leeway in disaffiliating with or completely voting out union bosses whose agendas harm the workers.”
Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
California workers claim victory in vote to remove Teamsters after union threat-mongering
Teamsters Trucked Out: John Cwiek didn’t give up the fight after Teamsters union officials tried to threaten him after he revealed info on union boss salaries. He rallied his coworkers, who sent the union packing.
ONTARIO, CA – In a victory for workplace freedom, employees at Los Angeles-based transportation company Dependable Highway Express have won their fight to remove Teamsters Local 63 union officials from their workplace. The campaign for removal was spearheaded by employee John Cwiek, who obtained support from a majority of his coworkers on a petition that sought a vote to remove the union. Cwiek received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation throughout his legal fight to remove the union he and his coworkers opposed.
Teamsters Walk Away
The initiative began when Mr. Cwiek filed a union decertification petition in March of this year, asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a secret ballot vote to strip Teamsters union officials of their monopoly bargaining power over Dependable Highway Express employees. Eventually, when it became clear the vote would be held, Teamsters officials conceded defeat and walked away from the bargaining unit rather than contest the decertification election.
Because Cwiek and his fellow employees work in non-Right to Work California, Teamsters officials were empowered to enforce contracts that forced employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. With the union gone, Dependable Highway Express workers are free from both the union’s forceddues demands and the unwanted monopoly bargaining power.
The decertification effort came after the Foundation assisted Cwiek in filing unfair labor practice charges against Teamsters union officials for retaliating against him because he revealed truthful but unfavorable information about union officials to his coworkers.
Union Bosses Threatened Worker for Revealing Union Boss Salaries
In January, Cwiek sent letters to his coworkers containing details about union boss salaries — information Cwiek pulled from the Teamsters union’s public filings with the U.S. Department of Labor. In retaliation for Cwiek sending the letters, a union official appeared at Cwiek’s workplace the next day, made accusations against him, and threatened that Cwiek wouldn’t be working at Dependable Highway Express by the next contract period.
“I am deeply troubled by the blatant retaliatory actions taken by officials at Teamsters Local 63 in response to expressing the views of myself and several other hard-working drivers at Dependable Highway Express,” Cwiek commented at the time. “We will not be deterred by their bullying tactics and the baseless accusations they levy against myself and others.”
“Mr. Cwiek’s battle and the struggles of other transportation workers across Southern California show exactly why Right to Work protections are so necessary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Workers obviously shouldn’t be forced to pay a union that engages in illegal activity, and ideally they should have full control over whether or not union officials get a cut of their paycheck.”
California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UFW bosses seized power under false pretenses, now stifle any dissent
Maria Gutierrez (left) and Claudia Chavez (right) are battling powerhungry UFW union bosses’ deceptive “card check” unionization drive, which has already stirred huge opposition among their coworkers.
BAKERSFIELD, CA – Most states don’t offer union bosses the legal privilege to force agricultural workers under their monopoly bargaining control. In such arrangements, all employees in a work unit must accept the “representation” of a union regardless of whether they support or voted for the union.
This isn’t the case in California, where the perennially pro-forced unionism legislature has granted union bosses the power to thrust farm employees under union control. Not only that, the state legislature recently handed union bosses the ability to gain power in an agricultural workplace via the so-called “card check” method. Card check bypasses workers’ right to vote in secret on the union and instead relies on union authorization cards collected by union officials, who often use misinformation, threats, or intimidation to obtain card signatures from workers, including in a current National Right to Work Foundation case.
CA Labor Board Blindly Accepts Suspect ‘Card Check’ Results
Card check has glaring flaws. Despite that, if a union submits cards collected from a majority of workers in a workplace, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) will immediately declare that union to be a monopoly bargaining agent — a status that can only be challenged after the fact.
Claudia Chavez and Maria Gutierrez are two Foundation-represented workers at Wonderful Nurseries’ grapevine nursey in Wasco, CA — the largest grapevine nursery in North America. They are now fighting for their and their coworkers’ rights in a situation that demonstrates the real-life problems that card check creates for worker freedom. In April, they submitted unfair labor practice charges stating that United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials “by artifice, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and/or coercion” got them and many of their coworkers to sign membership cards for the union, and the union falsely “represent[ed] itself as having obtained the support of a majority of the employees” afterward.
UFW Campaign Rife with Misrepresentation and Even Discrimination
“UFW union officials deceived us just so they could gain power in our workplace,” Chavez and Gutierrez commented. “Instead of just letting us vote in secret on whether we want a union, they went around lying and threatening to get cards and now are cracking down on anyone who speaks out against the union. We hope the ALRB listens to us and prosecutes the union for its illegal acts.”
Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges describe multiple lies — and even discriminatory behavior — that UFW union bosses used to get employees to sign authorization cards, including “representing that certain COVID19-related public benefits available to farmworkers required signatures on union membership cards . . . that union membership cards were not, in fact, union membership cards to be used in any UFW organizing efforts . . . presenting to strictly Spanishspeaking discriminatees union membership cards only in English . . . [and] presenting to illiterate discriminatees union membership cards and misrepresenting their content and/or significance.”
Workers Protest Illegal Union Actions Despite Crackdown on Dissent
UFW union officials’ malfeasance isn’t stopping, according to Chavez and Gutierrez’s charges. They contend that UFW bosses are illegally forbidding employees from taking back the fraudulently-obtained cards and are “engaging in a campaign of harassment, libel, slander, and intimidation against [employees who are] exercising their right of free speech and/or protest under [California labor law] to oppose UFW representation.” But it seems Wonderful Nurseries employees haven’t been deterred, as Wonderful Nurseries workers have engaged in multiple outdoor demonstrations against the union, chanting, “We don’t want a union, listen to our voices, don’t ignore us.”
As another part of the nursery workers’ battle against the UFW, Foundation attorneys represented 13 employees in a motion to intervene in Wonderful Nurseries’ separate case challenging the legitimacy of the card check drive, and now represent a total of 20 Wonderful Nurseries employees.
“UFW union officials have treated Wonderful Nurseries workers as pawns to be used in their pursuit of power, deceiving them with no regard for their rights and now engaging in retaliation against those who exercise their free speech rights against the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their situation above all shows the significant problems of the ‘card check’ process, in which workers are denied a chance to vote in secret on a union and are left exposed to a multitude of illegal union tactics.”
Full Foundation Action May/June 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- MIT Grad Students Slam Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
- Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Medieval Times Performers Are Union-Free
- Foundation Fires Back Against Biden NLRB ‘Card Check’ Mandate
- Michigan Security Guards Fight to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
- Foundation to Justices: Workers Opposing Unions Isn’t ‘Harm’ to be Eliminated
- Tennessee AT&T Workers Avert ‘Card Check’ Catastrophe with Foundation Aid
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Tennessee AT&T Workers Avert ‘Card Check’ Catastrophe with Foundation Aid
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CWA union officials tried to lock workers in inescapable unit without vote
President Biden, a longtime ally of radical CWA union officials, has stocked the National Labor Relations Board with ex-union lawyers who are manipulating labor law to give union bosses more options to trap workers in unions without a vote.
TENNESSEE – Over the years, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented countless workers across the country who have opposed union officials’ attempts to force them under monopoly bargaining via the coercive “card check” process. Unsurprisingly, workers prefer to cast ballots in secret, as opposed to having that right snatched in favor of a scheme where union bosses can intimidate workers into signing a card “authorizing” union control.
Fortunately, workers can turn to the Foundation for free legal aid in fighting coercive card check unionization. For example, in March, Denis Hodzic and his fellow In-Home Experts from AT&T Mobility locations across Tennessee successfully challenged a card check campaign by Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses that would have almost certainly confined them in the union for the rest of their careers with the company.
Union Bosses Tried to Trap Workers, Then Fled When Faced with Actual Vote
CWA agents installed themselves over Hodzic’s work unit — which was comprised of over 100 AT&T In-Home Experts — by card check. Shortly after, however, Hodzic filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a “decertification vote” to remove the union. Roughly two-thirds of his work unit signed the petition demanding a secret-ballot vote on the union’s presence.
CWA union officials filed objections in an attempt to stop the election, but an NLRB Regional Director rejected these and ruled that a decertification election should go forward. Before the vote could occur, CWA union officials filed paperwork disclaiming interest in continuing their control over the workers — likely to avoid an embarrassing rejection by employees at the ballot box.
Had Hodzic and his coworkers’ effort not succeeded, NLRB documents indicate that they would have been integrated into a nationwide bargaining unit comprised of thousands of employees, which would have made petitioning for a vote to kick out the union virtually impossible.
Biden NLRB Boosting Card Check Despite Unreliability
Cases like Hodzic’s serve as potent reminders that card check doesn’t represent the true will of workers vis-à-vis bringing in a union. Even AFL-CIO organizing guidelines admit that employees often sign cards during a card check to “get the union off my back.”
Despite this, the Biden NLRB is rapidly increasing union bosses’ ability to corral workers into a union via card check while cutting down workers’ ability to vote in secret-ballot union elections. In the August 2023 Cemex decision, the agency greatly expanded union bosses’ power to overturn elections that don’t go in their favor if an employer requests such an election to challenge a card check.
The Biden NLRB is also conducting rulemaking to overturn the Election Protection Rule (EPR), a set of Foundation-backed reforms that the NLRB adopted in 2020. The EPR permits employees to submit decertification petitions within a 45-day window after the finalization of a card check. This process was originally established by Foundation attorneys in the 2007 Dana Corp. NLRB case. Though this decision was later overturned by the Obama NLRB, “Dana elections” were codified in the EPR.
Hodzic and his colleagues were able to request their election under the auspices of this policy.
“The NLRB Election Protection Rule was essential for us to rely on as we went through the process of seeking resolution to our tricky situation,” Hodzic commented. “The 45-day petition window needs to remain regardless of which group holds the majority position in Washington . . . . [W]e hope that lawmakers see the necessity of having this rule in place, and that both unions and employers abide by the laid-out NLRB processes to ensure fair representation and protection of workers.”
“While Mr. Hodzic’s story had a happy ending, his situation illustrates just how dire things will get once the Biden NLRB’s anti-freedom agenda is fully realized,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “While American union bosses may desire a world in which they can force employees into inescapable work units without even a vote, Foundation attorneys will continue to fight for workers’ right to choose freely whether they want union control or not.”
Foundation to Justices: Workers Opposing Unions Isn’t ‘Harm’ to be Eliminated
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief in Starbucks-related SCOTUS case counters Labor Board attempts to impose union control
With the Supreme Court reviewing the standard used when the NLRB seeks injunctions that cement unions in power, the Foundation told the High Court such injunctions should not be allowed to infringe on workers’ legitimate right, under federal labor law and the Constitution, to oppose unionization.
WASHINGTON, DC – “Heads I win, tails you lose”: That’s how a brief filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys with the U.S. Supreme Court describes the Biden National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) argument that worker opposition to a union should count as a reason to impose union bosses’ demands on a workplace. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on this issue in January, with arguments scheduled for late April.
“Evidence that employees support a union is taken to mean they want to support the union,” the brief says. “Evidence that employees oppose a union is taken to mean their employer must have wrongfully caused the employees not to support the union. All evidence conveniently leads to the conclusion desired by current NLRB leadership: employees should support unions.”
The Foundation’s brief before the High Court in Starbucks v. McKinney discusses how NLRB officials use this radical assumption to urge federal courts to hit employers with “10(j) injunctions” that coerce the employers to give into certain union-demanded behavior. As Foundation attorneys explain, the NLRB often tells courts that worker discontent with a union is a “harm” that the courts should rectify with a 10(j) injunction.
Foundation in Starbucks Case: Worker Opposition to a Union is a Basic Right
Foundation staff attorneys push back on this theory in their legal brief, arguing that an employee’s decision to not support a union is not a “harm,” but a “legitimate choice [they] have a right to make” under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Union bosses and their allies in the NLRB want the U.S. Supreme Court to establish a rule in Starbucks v. McKinney that permits injunctions against employers if their alleged conduct could potentially coerce workers into not supporting a union. Foundation attorneys instead argue that “the Court must require the NLRB to prove employees were unlawfully coerced not to support a union because, absent such proof, employees have every right to make that choice” (emphasis added).
Starbucks Workers Challenging NLRB Constitutionality
In addition to fighting cynical attempts by Biden NLRB bureaucrats to turn worker opposition to unions into a reason to beef up union officials’ coercive power, Foundation attorneys are assisting two groups of Starbucks workers with federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Biden NLRB as a whole.
The newest effort comes from San Antonio, TX-area Starbucks employee Reed Busler and his coworkers. They submitted a petition to the NLRB containing enough employee signatures to prompt a vote to “decertify,” or remove, the SBWU union. But an NLRB Regional Director blocked the vote based on union allegations of employer misconduct that have no proven connection to Busler and his colleagues’ effort to vote out the union. Busler himself noted in an NLRB filing that the move to decertify started “because the Union was a divisive force in our store” and ignored workers.
Busler has filed a federal lawsuit against the NLRB arguing its structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine because NLRB Board Members are insulated from at-will removal. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that halts the NLRB from proceeding with his decertification case until his federal lawsuit is resolved.
“Starbucks is becoming ‘ground zero’ for several key battles over worker freedom,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Underlying a large portion of the drama is the NLRB’s flawed theory that workers’ exercise of their right to oppose unions is an evil to be eradicated, which unions and their allies in the NLRB bureaucracy are trying to use to force down their agenda on workplaces across the country.
“An even bigger issue, however, is the fact that the NLRB has for decades operated as a kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” Semmens added. “American employees shouldn’t be forced to fight for their rights in such a pro-union boss environment.”
Michigan Security Guards Fight to End Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Worker blasts state Right to Work repeal: ‘Now… [we] must join or lose our jobs’
Freedom Fighter: Security guard James Reamsma is disappointed that the Right to Work repeal re-imposes forced-dues payments, but he and his coworkers still have a shot to restore their liberty.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – In February, Big Labor allies in the Michigan Legislature and union partisan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer saw their plans to enrich union bosses at the expense of workers come to fruition. The repeal of the state’s Right to Work law — which Whitmer and state legislators backed despite polling showing that 70% of Michiganders wanted the law to remain in place — became effective that month.
Michigan’s Right to Work law, which took effect in 2013, was popular for a reason: It protected the state’s private sector workers from being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Michigan then experienced substantial economic gains while the law was effective. Now that union bosses can again force Michigan workers to pay dues or be fired, it’s no surprise that National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are seeing worker backlash to the change.
Despite Repeal, Western MI Guards Can Still Restore Worker Freedom
In a rebuke to the Right to Work repeal, security guards from government buildings across Western Michigan in February backed a “deauthorization petition” that will kick off a process that could strip union officials of the United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) of their forced-dues powers. In a non-Right to Work state, deauthorization is the only option that workers have to remove union bosses’ forced-dues power apart from voting the union out in a decertification election.
Similar to the decertification process, workers who petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a deauthorization vote must obtain signatures from 30% or more of their colleagues to trigger a vote. James Reamsma, the security guard who submitted the deauthorization petition with free Foundation legal aid, had signatures far beyond this threshold.
“UGSOA union officials have threatened to have everyone who does not join the union fired,” commented Reamsma. “Many of us are retired police officers, or military, working part time, supplementing our income by providing security for government buildings across Michigan.
“When Right to Work was in place, guards were never forced to join the union. Now part-time guards are expected to pay the same high dues as full-time guards and all guards must join or lose our jobs,” decried Reamsma.
According to the petition, the requested deauthorization vote will take place among “all full-time and regular part-time security guards . . . performing services for the Company . . . in and around the cities of Alena, Cadillac, Petoskey, Traverse City, West Branch, Flint, Bay [C]ity, [Big] Rapids, Ludington, Mount Pleasant, Owosso, Saginaw, Escanaba, Houghton, Ironwood, Marquette, Sault Ste. Marie, Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon, Michigan.”
In addition to providing free aid to Wolverine State workers like Reamsma and his colleagues who are taking legal action to counter forced dues, the Foundation also issued a legal notice in February to all Michigan workers explaining the new legal landscape.
In New Anti-Freedom Environment, Foundation Keeps MI Workers Informed
The notice explains that while union bosses again have forced-dues power in the private sector, private sector workers can still object to paying dues for union political purposes as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, or end forced dues in their workplace entirely by decertifying or deauthorizing the union.
As for public sector workers, the Foundation’s 2018 victory at the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME ensures that their freedom from forced dues is still protected by the First Amendment despite the cynical Right to Work repeal.
“Within weeks of Michigan’s Right to Work repeal, we see the harm Big Labor’s coercive policy agenda inflicted on rank-and-file workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Reamsma and his colleagues, who will be providing security to Western Michigan’s government buildings during what is likely to be another turbulent election year, don’t deserve to be forced into financially supporting a union they disapprove of, nor does any Michigan private sector employee.
“While union boss powers have greatly expanded since the Right to Work repeal, workers still have some rights to resist union boss coercion, and Foundation attorneys stand ready to help them exercise those rights,” Mix added.
MIT Grad Students Slam Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union hierarchy forcing students to pay dues, deny legally-required religious exemption
When Will Sussman declared his religious beliefs forbade him from supporting a union engaged in anti-Israel causes, GSU officials shamelessly (and illegally) went on demanding his money.
BOSTON, MA – “First, no principles, teachings, or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union . . . Secondly, the statements in your letter demonstrate that your objection to paying dues is based on your political views and not your religious belief.”
This was the brazen response of United Electrical (UE) union officials to five Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who sought legally-required religious accommodations to the forced payment of dues to the Graduate Student Union (GSU, an affiliate of UE). The students, William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky see funding the union as a violation of their Jewish faith due to, among other reasons, the union’s vocal support for the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement.
GSU Union, MIT Failed to Provide Religious Accommodations
“Jewish graduate students are a minority. We cannot remove our union, and we cannot talk them out of their antisemitic position — we’ve tried,” explained Sussman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the situation. “That is why many of us asked for a religious accommodation. But instead of respecting our rights, the union told me they understand my faith better than I do.”
The students are now fighting back with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. In March, they each filed federal discrimination charges against UE and GSU with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), declaring that the union is “discriminating against me based on a failure to accommodate my religious beliefs and cultural heritage” and “discriminating against me based on national origin, race, cultural heritage, & identity.”
Because MIT officials are involved in enforcing GSU union bosses’ forced-dues demands on the students, Foundation attorneys also sent a letter to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, notifying her of the EEOC charges and warning that the university will face similar charges if it does not promptly remedy the situation.
The graduate students are only subject to the union’s forced-dues demands as a result of a controversial Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, now being enforced by the Biden Labor Board, that deems graduate students at private universities to be “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, the MIT graduate students are subjected to the GSUUE’s monopoly union control.
Foundation Attorneys Have Track Record of Defending Religious Objectors
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, union officials in the private sector (which includes private educational institutions like MIT) generally have the power to compel those under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees. However, as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious accommodations to payment of dues or fees must be provided to those with sincere religious objections.
For decades, Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented religious objectors in cases opposing forced dues. While religious accommodations in these cases have varied, all of them forbid union bosses from demanding the worker pay any more money to the union.
Union Already Conceded Some Illegal Dues Practices
Sussman already dealt a blow against GSU officials in late February, when he forced union officials to settle federal charges he filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the union’s dues demands. In those charges, Sussman asserted his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prevents union officials from forcing those under their control to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions.
While the settlement required GSU union officials to send an email to all students under their control stating that they would now follow Beck, Sussman and his fellow students’ current EEOC charges seek to cut off all financial support to the controversial union, as is their right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“GSU union officials appear blinded by their political agenda and their desire to extract forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their idea of ‘representation’ apparently includes forcing Jewish graduate students to pay money to a union the students believe has relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity.
“GSU union bosses’ refusal to grant these students religious accommodations is as illegal as it is unconscionable, and Foundation attorneys will fight for their freedom from this tyrannical union hierarchy,” Mix added.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Medieval Times Performers Are Union-Free
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Performers banished union officials after they pushed unpopular, divisive strikes
Hail Queen Dean, Vanquisher of Unwanted Unions: Michelle Dean and her fellow Medieval Times performers ousted AGVA union officials, who had ordered employees on a lengthy and unproductive strike.
WASHINGTON, DC – Medieval Times, a nationwide chain of dinner theater “castles” in which a four-course meal is served while knights spar for Queen Doña Maria Isabella’s favor, provides guests a fun and captivating trip back in time.
But, at the castles in Buena Park, CA, and Lyndhurst, NJ, a more sinister plot was unfolding among the hardworking performers. Officials of the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA) union had ordered or were pressuring employees to go on strike, an unpopular move which caused division in the workplaces. At the California location, AGVA bosses issued an edict forcing many performers off the job for roughly nine months.
Majorities of Performers Backed AGVA Removal
Sensing that their fellow performers had had enough of AGVA’s attempts to control them, Artemisia Morley and Michelle Dean — who play the Queens at the New Jersey and California castles respectively — sought free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Both women filed petitions backed by their coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold votes at their workplaces on whether to banish AGVA union officials.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, which includes administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Majorities of performers at both castles backed the petitions — far exceeding the 30% threshold needed to trigger an election under NLRB rules.
Rather than face a secret ballot vote of the workers they claimed to “represent,” AGVA union chiefs filed “disclaimers of interest” and fled both castles before either election could take place — likely sensing that the majority-backed petitions signaled a defeat was coming.
Even after Morley had filed a decertification petition indicating the majority of her coworkers wanted a vote to decertify AGVA, union bosses tried to cling to power at the New Jersey castle. They attempted to block the vote by filing “blocking charges,” which are often-unrelated allegations against management meant to derail a vote.
The tide substantially turned against AGVA union officials in New Jersey after Morley’s Foundation attorneys successfully challenged a decision from an NLRB Regional Director that halted the decertification vote based on union officials’ “blocking charges.” Filings in Morley’s case indicated that the performers’ discontent with the union had nothing to do with Medieval Times management and was rather due to “secretive, self-interested, and divisive” behavior by union bosses and their insistence on a strike.
‘Secretive, Self-Interested’ Union Boss Behavior Led to Performers’ Revolt
Meanwhile, in California, AGVA union officials called off a roughly nine-month-long strike at the Buena Park Medieval Times just before Dean filed her decertification petition, likely aware of the tension the strike was causing and the growing number of performers who supported ejecting the union.
“AGVA union officials treated each Medieval Times castle as their own personal fiefdom, but their actions led to an uprising of the rank-and-file they purported to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “While the wishes of the Medieval Times performers have finally been obtained, it should be remembered that workers all over the country are subjected to union control they oppose, and they face fierce union and bureaucratic battles to secure secret ballot decertification votes.”.
