After Janus, Foundation Continues Fight to Expand Freedom for Public Employees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Building off Janus, CUNY professors’ lawsuit could end forced ‘representation’ powers
The Foundation’s historic Janus victory was a serious blow to public sector union bosses’ coercive power in its own right. But it also opened the door for efforts to free public workers completely from forced dues and forced representation.
NEW YORK, NY – Up until 2018, union bosses had the power to force millions of government workers to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. While such an enormous privilege was not only a gross violation of workers’ free association rights, it also provided a steady stream of forced dues to union bosses, which contributed to their outsized influence over the government and our political system.
Union officials’ forced-dues power over public sector workers crumbled on June 27, 2018, when National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys won the landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision at the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the Justices agreed with Foundation attorneys that every American public sector worker has a First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to an unwanted union.
On the fifth anniversary of Janus, its impact can’t be overstated. Between the Janus decision itself and over 50 follow-up cases, Foundation staff attorneys have enforced the rights of over 500,000 employees nationwide. Meanwhile, studies find that independent-minded workers are withholding over $700 million in formerly mandatory dues and fees from public sector union bosses every year as a result of the decision.
Of course, Foundation staff attorneys continue to fight to defend, enforce, and expand on the landmark decision.
New Challenge to Forced ‘Representation’ Reaches Court of Appeals
In an ongoing Foundation-assisted case, Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress (PSC), six City University of New York (CUNY) professors seek to knock down the final pillar of coercive union power in the public sector — union bosses’ power to force their one-size-fits=all “representation” on workers who don’t want it.
A brief recently filed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for the professors argues that PSC union officials are violating the professors’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to accept the union’s monopoly control and “representation.”
Professors’ Lawsuit: Janus Already Noted Dangers of Monopoly Bargaining
The professors have found the actions of PSC union bosses and adherents to be “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” and have even reported union-instigated bullying and threats targeted against them.
The professors’ opening brief at the Second Circuit maintains that the Supreme Court already acknowledged in the Janus decision that public sector monopoly bargaining is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms,” and argues that New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such bargaining in violation of workers’ rights.
“If the First Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the government from dictating who speaks for citizens in their relations with the government,” reads the brief.
The case, which will likely head to the U.S. Supreme Court no matter how the Circuit Court rules, could set a nationwide precedent forbidding public sector monopoly bargaining, just as Janus prohibits forced dues in all public sector workplaces. The combination of both Foundation-won precedents would guard public workers nationwide from both forced dues and forced representation.
Foundation Brief Defends State Law to Fortify Janus
The Janus victory also motivated freedom-loving state legislators to take extra measures to ensure workers’ First Amendment rights under Janus are being enforced.
In Indiana, a reform now forbids public employers from using taxpayer-funded government payroll systems to deduct union dues without a worker’s explicit consent. Public employers must obtain yearly consent from workers who wish to have union dues taken from their paychecks, and must also ensure that workers have notice of their constitutional right not to fund union activities. Unsurprisingly, dues-hungry Anderson Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials sued the state to block these commonsense protections.
Foundation attorneys joined the fight recently to defend Indiana’s laws. A Foundation brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals urges the court to overturn a lower court’s injunction of these reforms, citing Seventh Circuit precedent.
Foundation attorneys helped successfully defend a similar law in West Virginia in 2021, which the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld on the basis that union bosses “have no constitutional entitlement to employees’ money or to the employer’s administration of union dues deduction schemes.”
Federal Courts Must End Union Monopolies
“Janus was a great triumph for American public workers’ freedom, but it was only a step toward the ultimate goal of freeing public workers from all unwanted union coercion,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “No American worker should be forced to associate with union officials and union members that openly oppose their interests, including through attacks on their culture and religion as the plaintiffs in Goldstein have harrowingly experienced.”
“It’s encouraging to see that states like Indiana have stepped up to protect workers’ Janus rights,” Semmens added. “But ultimately, after recognizing in Janus and older precedents that union monopoly bargaining abridges workers’ free association rights, it’s high time for federal courts to end this enormous government-granted power for union bosses once and for all.”
Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Take on Widespread Janus Violations
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief: Pending case should be used to underscore need to obtain workers’ consent to dues
In 2019, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy took proactive steps to protect Janus, but dues-hungry ASEA union bosses fought his actions all the way up to the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Right to Work Foundation’s victory in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case set a monumental First Amendment precedent. In Janus, the Justices recognized that no public sector worker can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and that unions cannot deduct union dues from a public sector worker’s wages unless that worker waives his or her Janus rights.
Now the Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to, five years after Janus was issued, take another case to clarify and fortify the Janus precedent against numerous misinterpretations by greedy union officials, union-backed state politicians, and, most worryingly, some lower court judges.
Alaska Takes Lead on Janus Rights Only to Face Union Boss Resistance
The Foundation’s brief asks the Supreme Court to weigh in on an Alaska lawsuit that started when union officials sought to nullify Alaska state officials’ attempt to fully protect the First Amendment rights of public employees. Union officials challenged the state’s arrangement which ensured that the state didn’t deduct dues from any public employee who had not knowingly waived their rights under Janus.
After the Janus decision, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order requiring the state to obtain proof of consent from workers each year to deduct union dues from their paychecks. The requirement was designed to prevent union bosses from deducting dues money from the wages of a worker who didn’t fully understand their legal rights under Janus. Many workers, for example, may have authorized dues deductions years before the Supreme Court recognized that mandatory payments to unions as a condition of government employment violate the Constitution.
Unwilling to comply with even this modest check on their power to deduct union dues directly from government employees’ paychecks, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA) officials battled the State of Alaska in state court. Eventually, ASEA union lawyers were able to get the state’s highest court to block the arrangement. But the Supreme Court has the ability to fix the Alaska State Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of Janus.
Following the State of Alaska’s petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case, Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief of their own, urging the Justices to uphold Alaska’s safeguards on Janus and correct the misinterpretations of Janus made by an increasing number of courts and state governments around the country.
Brief: States and Courts Are Ignoring Janus, Need to Be Reined In
The Foundation’s argument notes that, after the Janus decision, at least seventeen states either changed their laws to require government employers to enforce union boss-invented restrictions on when employees can stop union dues deductions, or enforced dues deduction restrictions already on the books. Both lead to unacceptable restraints on public sector workers’ Janus rights, the amicus brief argues.
The amicus brief further contends that lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over Alaska, have misinterpreted Janus by not mandating government employers notify public workers of their Janus rights before taking union dues from their paychecks. For a waiver of one’s rights to be effective, a person must know what those rights are — just as police officers “Mirandize” suspects they arrest by informing them of their “right to remain silent.”
Union Bosses Value Dues-Funded Politicking Over Public Servants’ Rights
The amicus brief also points out that the Ninth Circuit has issued decisions that free public employers from any obligation to prove that union bosses obtained authentic consent from workers before dues are taken from their wages — opening the door for forged or fake dues deduction cards.
“Unless the Court grants review and breathes new life into Janus’ waiver requirement, unions and their government allies will continue to severely restrict the right of millions of employees to stop subsidizing union speech,” the amicus brief concludes.
“Public sector union bosses, who prize their own dues-funded political influence far above the individual rights of the employees they claim to ‘represent,’ have tried everything in their power to dodge the Janus ruling and keep siphoning money from workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Supreme Court
has an opportunity in the State of Alaska’s case to set the record straight and ensure that workers’ free association rights can’t simply be molded according to their own schemes.”
Foundation Defends Michigan Workers with Forced Dues Looming
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
With Right to Work repeal law passed, workers seek to escape mandatory payments
Michigan legislators’ unpopular decision to repeal the state’s Right to Work law helped prompt Mary Soltysiak and her coworkers’ move to vote out the IAM union.
LANSING, MI – Despite poll after poll showing 70 percent of Michiganders wanted Michigan’s decade-old Right to Work law left in place, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and union cronies in the Michigan Legislature voted to strip Wolverine State workers of their right to refrain from funding unwanted union bosses in March. In response, the Foundation sprang into action, issuing a Special Legal Notice to Michigan workers advising them of their legal options as the state transitions to a forced-dues regime. The notice reminded workers that, despite what union bosses may claim, the state’s Right to Work law remains in effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends later this year — and also what they can do in advance of forced dues being legal again. Unsurprisingly, given Right to Work’s popularity even among union households, Michigan workers are stepping up and taking action to defend their rights against coercive unionism.
Michigan Workers Battle Forced-Dues Schemes Ahead of Repeal
For example, Foundation attorneys are currently assisting Grand Rapids-area Kroger employee Roger Cornett’s challenge to an illegal dues scheme perpetrated by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials. Cornett hit UFCW bosses with federal charges this May, accusing them of ignoring a letter in which he exercised his right to cut off dues deductions from his paycheck. Cornett’s charges also maintained that UFCW bosses sought to seize money from him using a form that blatantly violates existing federal law. Cornett’s charge says the form is illegal because of its “dual purpose” nature, meaning just one signature confusingly locks a worker into both membership and dues deductions. Federal law requires any authorization for union dues deductions to be voluntary and separate from a union membership application. UFCW bosses’ contempt for longstanding federal protections in Cornett’s case likely indicates how aggressively union officials will pursue forced dues under a non-Right to Work regime. The Foundation’s legal notice also counsels workers that they can avoid forced-dues arrangements entirely by petitioning the NLRB to hold “decertification elections” at their workplaces, in which workers can vote unpopular unions out.
Legal Notice Counsels Workers of Right to Vote Out Unwanted Unions
Mary Soltysiak, who opposes forced dues, heard news of the upcoming repeal and filed a petition to decertify the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District Lodge 60/Local Lodge 475 union with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys. Soltysiak and her colleagues work at Terryberry, a manufacturing firm in Grand Rapids, MI.
Soltysiak stated that she and some of her colleagues “contacted [a Foundation attorney] and filled out paperwork to get out of paying union dues around the year 2018 because of the Right to Work . . . law.”
“The union has done nothing but hurt my paycheck and my vacation hours,” Soltysiak added.
Soltysiak and her coworkers achieved victory this May, when the NLRB certified their majority vote ousting the IAM union. Hopefully, their success portends the future success of the growing number of workers in Michigan and across the country looking to decertify the unions in their workplaces.
Foundation Also Defending Public Sector Right to Work Protections
As noted in the Foundation’s legal notice, the Michigan Right to Work repeal does not affect public sector Michigan employees. Under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, no public worker in America can be forced to subsidize a union as a condition of employment. But, as the repeal is looming, Michigan public sector union officials are nonetheless seeking to undermine public employees’ freedom to refrain from union support through so-called “fee-for-grievance” schemes.
This April, the Foundation submitted a brief in the Michigan Supreme Court case Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Renner, in which TPOAM officials are trying to enforce a “fee-for-grievance” policy against Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner. Under it, union bosses strip nonmember public employees of any power to file grievances themselves, and instead mandate that they pay fees sometimes exceeding yearly union dues to use the union’s grievance system.
Michigan legislators’ unpopular decision to repeal the state’s Right to Work law helped prompt Mary Soltysiak and her coworkers’ move to vote out the IAM union.
In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys refute the union’s claims for this newfound power, stating that “fee-for-grievance” schemes were never authorized by the Michigan Legislature and are inconsistent with federal law.
Foundation Attorneys Will Defend Worker Freedom in Michigan
“Michigan union officials and their allies in the state legislature have contempt for workers’ individual rights that knows no bounds,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “That was made clear by the repeal of the popular Right to Work law, and the attempt to undermine Right to Work protections for public sector employees which are safeguarded by the First Amendment under the Foundation’s Janus U.S. Supreme Court victory.”
“Michigan workers have a long road ahead to restore their rights against union coercion, but Foundation attorneys are fighting alongside these workers, and will continue to fight until no Michigan worker can be forced to pay union bosses they disapprove of just to keep a job,” Messenger added.
Foundation-Backed Workers Notch Victories Over Dues-Hungry UAW Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
UAW caught using threats and coercion to illegally seize workers’ dues
Ford employee Shiphrah Green excoriated UAW bosses in the Louisville Courier Journal over their blatant disregard for her rights. Foundation attorneys are helping her and others battle the notoriously corrupt union.
LOUISVILLE, KY – United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have a well-deserved reputation for looking out for their own interests while throwing rank-and-file workers under the bus. The most prominent recent example is the corruption and embezzlement scandal, in which federal investigators revealed that UAW officials had siphoned millions of dollars in workers’ money to fund opulent golf vacations in luxury condos and private villas, spa and amusement park visits, $60,000 cigar-buying sprees, and much more.
But the federal corruption probe that led to eleven top UAW bosses pleading guilty, including former union presidents Gary Jones and Dennis Williams, is hardly the only time greedy UAW bosses abused their government-granted monopoly bargaining powers.
In a series of recent cases brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the UAW, workers are utilizing the Foundation’s free legal aid to vindicate their rights in the face of illegal dues demands by UAW officials.
Foundation-won Settlements Force UAW to Return Money to KY, IA Workers
Shiphrah Green, an employee of Ford Motor Company’s Louisville Assembly Plant, prevailed over UAW Local 862 bosses with free Foundation legal aid in April. UAW bosses were forced to settle and return money they had unlawfully taken from Green’s pay.
Green’s federal charges against the union maintained not only that UAW officials had made her jump through unnecessary hoops to exercise her right to cut off union dues, but also that UAW bosses made threats against her job when she tried to resign, with one union official warning her “if it were up to me, you’d lose your job for leaving the union.” Green’s settlement also forced UAW officials to refrain from such illegal threats in the future.
Meanwhile in Iowa, four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson won a recent settlement in which UAW officials were required to return over $1,000 in illegally-seized dues.
In each Donaldson worker’s case, UAW bosses had either refused to stop dues deductions despite producing no original documentation showing the workers had consented to such deductions in the first place, or had kept seizing money after an employee resigned union membership and revoked authorization to deduct dues, which should have been effective in stopping the flow of dues.
Because Ms. Green and the Donaldson workers reside in Right to Work states, the Foundation-won cases mean they will be free from all union financial support going forward.
Philly Public Defender Hits UAW with Charges
Even in non-Right to Work states where union officials have the power to compel workers to pay some fees under threat of termination, UAW bosses still go far beyond what is legal in their greedy forced-dues demands.
For example, Foundation staff attorneys recently filed a case for Philadelphia public defender Brunilda Vargas. Vargas, a vocal opponent of the UAW’s unionization drive, was told by UAW organizers that the union would reduce her and her coworkers’ wages if they did not grant the union the power to automatically deduct union dues directly from their paychecks.
Not only is the threat illegal, but further, employees can never be required to authorize automatic dues deductions from their paychecks under long-established federal law. This is true even in a state like Pennsylvania where workers lack the protection of a Right to Work law. Vargas’ charge, filed in June, is now being investigated.
“American workers likely have a plethora of reasons for wanting nothing to do with UAW union officials, including but not limited to the dizzying corruption in the union that has led to so many union officials going to prison,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “As Foundation attorneys have experienced, UAW officials will often resort to clearly illegal methods to squeeze money out of dissenting workers in violation of federal law.”
“Union bosses who cannot convince workers to pay union dues voluntarily should not be allowed to seize union dues under threat of termination,” Semmens added.
Former Connecticut State Trooper Wins Over $250,000 in Political Discrimination Suit
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CSPU union upended trooper’s career after he refused to fund union politics
Joseph Mercer fought back with free Foundation legal aid when the CSPU union blocked his promotion because he challenged union political activities and told others about their rights.
HARTFORD, CT – In 2015, then-Connecticut State Trooper Joseph Mercer received a promotion to Operations Sergeant of the Emergency Services Unit, a position that gave him significant responsibility over emergency services training and field operations. Mercer gained this prestigious position through his seventeen years of experience as a trooper, which included a tense situation with an armed suspect barricaded in a hotel.
But behind the scenes, Mercer was a target of Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) officials, who resented Mercer because of his resistance to funding union politics with his own money. After CSPU President Andrew Matthews filed two baseless grievances against Mercer, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) demoted him to a position that offered fewer overtime opportunities and involved less time in the field.
Mercer slammed CSPU and DESPP officials with a federal lawsuit in 2016 with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, accusing police union officials of retaliating against him for exercising his right to stop funding union politics.
This April, Foundation attorneys forced CSPU and DESPP to back down and settle the case. Both parties must now pay $260,500 as a condition of ending the suit.
CSPU Union President Targeted Dissident Trooper Immediately After Promotion
Just a month after Mercer received his promotion, CSPU President Matthews filed a grievance over Sergeant Mercer’s appointment.
Matthews’ grievance claimed that there had been no “selection process” to fill the position, despite the fact that none of Sergeant Mercer’s union-member predecessors had undergone any particular kind of selection process before they got the job. Matthews also filed a second baseless grievance, alleging Mercer had mismanaged the incident involving the armed suspect barricaded in a hotel. State police officials had never expressed dissatisfaction with how Mercer handled the situation.
In October 2015, after meeting in private with the union president, then-DESPP Commissioner Dora Schriro transferred Mercer out of his Operations Sergeant position to an administrative post. Prior to this demotion, Mercer had received no warnings, reprimands, or other disciplinary actions regarding the incident referenced in Matthews’ grievance. Mercer filed his lawsuit with Foundation aid in February 2016.
Mercer’s Foundation attorneys cranked up the heat on both the union and DESPP officials in May 2022, when a District Court judge ordered DESPP Commissioner James Rovella, who had replaced Schriro, to turn over additional documents that might provide insight into the circumstances surrounding Mercer’s firing.
Rather than follow through with the judge’s discovery order and continue the fight against Mercer, CSPU and DESPP reversed course and settled the case in April 2023. The settlement categorizes the vast majority of the $260,500 payout as “compensatory damages” due directly to Mercer.
Settlement Underscores Importance of Public Servants’ Janus Rights
“We are proud to have defended Sergeant Mercer’s rights and secured him a settlement that vindicates his free association,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “However, it’s disgraceful that CSPU union officials targeted Mercer, a dedicated public safety officer, with such a retribution scheme in the first place. Public servants should not have to endure multi-year lawsuits just so they can refrain from supporting union politics they oppose.”
“Situations like these demonstrate why the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided while Mercer’s case was ongoing, is so important,” Messenger added. “As demonstrated in Mercer’s case, unelected union officials often wield their enormous clout over government to serve the union’s self interests over the public interest and employee interests. That’s why it’s vital that public employees can exercise their First Amendment Janus right to cut off all financial support for union officials this way.”
Foundation Slams NLRB, ILA Union Officials in Brief to Fourth Circuit Court
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation defends union-free SC port workers who would lose their jobs under NLRB ruling
Foundation staff attorneys are fighting to ensure that Charleston’s state-of-the-art Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal doesn’t become a safe harbor for ILA union bosses’ anti-worker schemes.
CHARLESTON, SC – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have joined the fight against the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s ongoing gambit to idle Charleston’s state-of-the-art Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal if the union can’t get control of all jobs at the facility.
Hostile Union Power Play Seeks to Put Non-Union Workers Out of Job
The Foundation recently filed a legal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file multi-million-dollar lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of all crane lift equipment jobs at the facility.
Since its opening in March 2021, some of the work at Leatherman Terminal has been performed by non-union state employees, some of whom have worked for the SCPA for years. The brief argues that if ILA union bosses’ power grab succeeds, it will “cause grievous harm to 270 State port workers and their families.”
The Foundation “submits this brief to provide a voice for the otherwise voiceless non-union State employees, and to give the Court a unique perspective on the stakes involved for those workers and their families,” the brief states. The brief highlights the dire consequences of the ILA maneuver for control of Leatherman’s 270 employees, who are otherwise protected by state law from monopoly union control.
According to the brief, South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but due to the ILA’s power grab “the only way for South Carolina’s $1 billion Leatherman Terminal to be usable would be for the State to turn the facility over to a private employer with an ILA contract and discharge the 270 State employees.” The devastating effects for current employees and their families wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case. Even if the fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA union’s seniority provisions and hiring rules would likely bar them from being rehired.
ILA Union Officials Have History of Corruption
The attempt by ILA union officials to seek total control over workers at the Leatherman terminal is hardly the only underhanded tactic the ILA has been linked to. In 2022, the New York Daily News reported ILA chiefs negotiated “deals” where mob-linked longshoremen in New York and New Jersey could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day.
“ILA union officials, with assistance from the NLRB, are directly working to destroy the livelihoods of these 270 South Carolinians,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The NLRB’s blatant disregard of the rights and wellbeing of workers and siding with union tyrants is outrageous.”
“The non-union port workers who have called Leatherman their workplace for over a decade must be protected,” added Semmens.
Foundation Fights For Starbucks Workers Seeking to Oust Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Majority of workers at flagship NYC Starbucks Roastery want decertification vote
NEW YORK, NY – Union bosses and their bought-and-paid-for political allies have been touting Starbucks as the latest and greatest frontier in union organizing. But, as soon as legally permitted after several high-profile Starbucks unionization efforts, workers are already seeking to vote out union officials.
Kevin Caesar, an employee of the high-end Starbucks Reserve Roastery location in Manhattan, sought out Foundation legal aid this May. He sought assistance in submitting a petition backed by a majority of his colleagues to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a vote to remove, or “decertify,” Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), and their puppet-masters at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from the Roastery. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), workers must wait one year after a union is installed before seeking to remove it, meaning Caesar and his colleagues essentially filed their decertification petition as soon as allowed by the law.
“We have seen our workplace both with and without the union. We believe that the union is looking out for itself more than it is looking out for Starbucks partners, who do not want forced dues and who can advocate for ourselves,” stated Caesar about why he wants to be free of the union.
“That is why a majority of us have decided we would be better off without the union. The fact that the union officials have forced us to go through this decertification process despite the majority of workers stating they do not want to be represented by this union shows how little regard the union has for the will of the workers,” he added. “We call on union officials to respect our rights and not attempt to fight this vote.”
With the petition filed, the NLRB should now promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ power to impose a contract, including forced dues, on the workers. However, SBWU officials have already announced they will seek to block the vote, a matter Foundation attorneys quickly opposed in a brief to the NLRB.
Worker Dissatisfaction with Unions Growing Nationwide
The Starbucks workers are just the latest example of growing dissatisfaction with union officials’ so-called “representation.” Currently, worker requests for Foundation aid in decertifying an unwanted union are at an all-time high. NLRB statistics similarly show a 20% increase in decertification petitions last year versus 2021.
Unfortunately, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks, which can impact the Starbucks workers if union officials plot to stay in power regardless of workers’ wishes. Foundation-backed NLRB reforms from 2020, collectively known as the “Election Protection Rule,” have made it somewhat easier for workers to escape unwanted union “representation,” by eliminating the most egregious “blocking charge” tactics used by union bosses to delay or stop decertification elections entirely. “Blocking charges” are unverified union boss allegations of employer misconduct, often unrelated to workers’ desire to decertify.
Currently, the Biden-appointed NLRB majority is conducting rulemaking to roll back these protections and make it much harder for workers to decertify a union.
Foundation Provides Legal Notice to Starbucks Employees
After being in contact with multiple Starbucks workers interested in how to resist union control, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing employees of the coffee chain of their right to petition for a vote to oust an unpopular union.
“No worker anywhere should be forced under so-called union ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Starbucks workers around the nation that fall victim to union tyranny should know they can turn to Foundation staff attorneys for assistance.”
“Foundation staff attorneys are now fighting to ensure that these workers are not denied the vote that they are entitled to under federal law to remove union control they oppose,” continued Mix. “Union bosses should not be allowed to keep their grip on power simply by disenfranchising those they claim to ‘represent.’”
Foundation: Texas Taxpayers Shouldn’t Be Forced to Fund Union Activities
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief says Janus explains why Texas Supreme Court must invalidate ‘official time’ scam
Don’t Mess with Taxes: The Foundation urged the Texas Supreme Court (above) in recent legal briefs to quash the City of Austin’s scheme funneling taxpayer money to union ideological activities.
AUSTIN, TX – Union officials spend billions of dollars to influence the political system every election cycle. This is why they are so desperate for forced-dues power — it gives them a guaranteed stream of revenue to sustain their agendas, regardless of whether workers support the union hierarchy’s aims.
But workers are increasingly taking advantage of their rights under Right to Work laws and the landmark National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision to refrain from financially supporting union bosses of whom they do not approve.
Union bosses in Austin, TX, have apparently worked around this dilemma by shifting the burden for funding the union agenda to taxpayers. Through a so-called “official time” scheme, City of Austin employees who are union officials receive compensation from the public purse for conducting union business on the clock.
‘Official Time’ Boosts Inherently Political Government Union Agenda
Foundation attorneys recently filed a brief in the Texas Supreme Court case Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, arguing that the Foundation-won Janus decision definitively shows why Austin’s scheme violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibitions against payouts of public funds to serve private interests (known as the “Gift Clauses”). The High Court ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment, and that union dues can only be deducted from a public sector worker’s paycheck with his or her freely given consent.
An “official time” scheme, which instead forces taxpayers into funding those same union activities, “conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasons for holding in Janus that it violates the First Amendment to require public employees to subsidize union activities,” says the Foundation’s brief.
The Foundation points out in its brief the Court’s Janus holding that all public sector union undertakings “constitute speech and petitioning on matters of political…concern,” and that by funneling taxpayer money into such speech “the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members.”
“The notion that this political advocacy predominantly serves a public purpose, as opposed to predominantly benefiting the private organization, is untenable,” the brief reads.
The brief also refutes an assertion from a lower Texas court that “official time” payments made by the city are actually part of union officials’ compensation for their normal job duties. This defies Janus’ reasoning that public employees who are also union officials “do not act as government agents pursuing their official job duties when they act as union officials.”
“For example, in granting paid leave to employee Bob Nicks to act as the Union’s president, the City is not paying Mr. Nicks for his services as a firefighter or as a public servant,” the brief explains. “The City is paying Mr. Nicks for his services as an agent of a private organization.”
The brief also reveals the disturbing implications of the union-backed argument that taxpayer subsidies for “official time” are needed to maintain harmonious relations between the city and the union: “If respondents contend that Union officials would disrupt City services if they did not receive [‘official time’], that would make the benefit akin to the City paying protection money” to union officials, reads the brief.
Union Bosses Should Not Get Public Funds to Pursue Union Interests
“The Texas Supreme Court should recognize that union officials are not entitled to a slice of taxpayer funds to ‘bargain’ against public interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Texas’ Gift Clauses forbid the payout of public funds for activities that don’t have a tangible public benefit, and it’s hard to think of an arrangement that violates the Clauses more plainly than letting union bosses pursue private union business on the taxpayer dime.”
“Although Janus now protects public employees around the country from being forced to fund union activities and speech against their will, unfortunately many states and municipalities across the country permit union bosses to subsidize those same inherently political activities using direct payment of tax dollars,” LaJeunesse added.
“If union bosses cannot convince rank-and-file workers to voluntarily fund such activities as Janus requires, they should re-examine their priorities, not seek to force taxpayers to pay for what public employees will not.”
Busted: Kroger Worker’s Card Illegally Altered to ‘Authorize’ Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Employee’s UFCW union card indicating objection to financial support changed without her knowledge
Jessica Haefner clearly exercised her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law. Foundation attorneys will get to the bottom of who faked her consent to dues deductions and restore her rights.
HOUSTON, TX – Supermarket clerk Jessica Haefner began her job at a suburban Houston Kroger store in August 2022. She attended a mandatory meeting for new employees run by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) local union agents. Despite the union’s hard-sell at the meeting, she knew her rights under Texas’ Right to Work law: Union bosses couldn’t force her to pay any dues or fees to the union to keep her job.
During the meeting, Haefner followed a union representative’s instructions to indicate on a union form that she did not want to be a part of the union or pay dues or fees. But she was shocked to discover just weeks later not only that union dues were coming out of her paycheck, but also that the union form she was required to sign had been altered to indicate she consented to those deductions.
Haefner, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, slammed UFCW officials and Kroger with federal charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges state that UFCW bosses’ and Kroger’s actions violate her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees American private sector workers’ right to abstain from any and all union activities.
“I was lied to . . . and my rights were not only violated as an employee but as an American citizen,” said Haefner.
Employee’s Dues Form Was Altered, Forced Dues Deductions Began
According to Haefner’s charges, a UFCW agent passed out a union membership application and a dues checkoff on a single form that he claimed was mandatory for meeting attendees to complete. Another piece of onboarding literature stated that Kroger management had the “opinion that you should participate and be active in the Union.”
When Haefner asked how she could exercise her right to refrain from joining the union or paying union dues, the union agent instructed Haefner to write “$0” in the field marked “union dues” on the form.
Haefner followed these instructions. But after discovering later that union dues were indeed coming out of her paycheck, Haefner quickly obtained a copy of the form on which Kroger and UFCW officials based their dues deductions. She saw that someone had changed the dues deduction amount in the field she marked “$0” to a dollar amount to induce dues deductions from her paycheck.
UFCW Chiefs Illegally Seizing Dues from Grocery Workers Across Country
UFCW’s violation of Haefner’s rights is not an isolated incident. In Pennsylvania, Foundation staff attorneys are also representing Giant Eagle supermarket cashier Josiah Leonatti, who charges UFCW Local 1776KS union officials with refusing to accommodate his religious objections to union membership (see page 3). King Soopers grocery employees from Colorado are also receiving free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys in opposing illegal UFCW strike fines, some of which are as high as about $4,000 per worker.
“Jessica Haefner knew her rights under Texas’ popular Right to Work law and actively asserted them, yet UFCW union officials still brazenly took her money against her will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
“As cases brought for workers with free Foundation legal aid show, UFCW bosses have a long and documented history of violating workers’ rights, whether through thousands of dollars in illegal strike fines, illegal religious discrimination, threatening teenagers’ jobs, and now by altering a worker’s dues authorization,” Mix added.
Foundation Slams Biden Labor Board’s Biased Ruling in Federal Appeals Court
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Brief contends NLRB distorted precedent to trap workers in union they oppose
A majority of J.G. Kern employees petitioned to oust the UAW, which has seen two of its former presidents (Gary Jones, right, and Dennis Williams, left) go to jail for corruption. But a biased NLRB ruling trapped the workers in UAW ranks anyway.
WASHINGTON, DC – Foundation staff attorneys recently filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision reversing workers’ attempt to remove union “representation” they oppose.
In the case, J.G. Kern employees, frustrated with the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 228 union, decided to petition to decertify, or formally remove, the union from their workplace. The workers presented this majority petition to their employer, leading to the company removing its recognition of the union.
The petition contained overwhelming support from workers in favor of removing the union. Yet, after the company withdrew recognition from the union, UAW officials ran to the Biden Labor Board in an attempt to remain in power. The Biden-appointed NLRB majority sided with the union officials by re-imposing the unpopular union over the workers’ objections.
With the case now in the federal court of appeals, the Foundation filed an amicus brief arguing the NLRB’s April 2022 ruling ignores precedent and misapplies longstanding law in siding with union officials.
Decertification Rules Already Rigged Against Workers Opposed to Union Affiliation
As the brief points out, workers looking to file a petition to remove a union they oppose already face numerous hurdles due to NLRB rules, most of which are contained nowhere in the federal statute the NLRB is charged with enforcing.
For example, a petition must be gathered outside of work hours, and outside of work-related areas. Also, unless employees use certain Board-specified language in their petition, the petition is invalid. Furthermore, employees cannot ask their employer for further information regarding the decertification process or the petition will be invalid.
The Foundation’s brief observes how workers must operate “in the dark, without help from their employer, and even if they do everything right, their efforts might come to naught through no fault of their own.” It also shows how the Biden Board has made it more difficult for individual workers to express their right to decertify unwanted, unpopular unions.
Biden NLRB Aims to Force Union on Workers Who Overwhelmingly Object
Under the Board’s “certification bar” doctrine, a union that wins a secret ballot election cannot be challenged for one year after its victory is certified by the NLRB. In this case, the UAW’s certification bar ended on October 3, 2019. In November 2019, J.G. Kern employees delivered a majority-backed petition to their employer.
The Biden Board claimed, however, that because J.G. Kern did not bargain in good faith during a three-month period at the beginning of the certification year, the employees’ majority petition was invalid. According to the Biden Board, the employer’s alleged unfair labor practices prospectively “extended” the certification year beyond its normal 12-month period.
The brief highlights the disingenuousness of the Board, pointing out that “the employees would have to divine the future to know they were collecting a petition during the ‘extended certification year.’” The Foundation urges the D.C. Circuit to command the Board to follow precedent that requires the Board to determine whether there was a “nexus” between the employer’s unfair labor practices and the decertification petition.
NLRB’s Power Grab Takes Away Workers’ Rights
The Foundation’s brief emphasizes how the Board’s decision can abolish employees’ rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. An example of that is the J.G. Kern workers’ petition, where it was only after the petition was gathered that the Board extended the union’s certification bar period.
The brief notes that usually “an employee’s decertification petition is presumptively valid unless there is a causal nexus between the unfair labor practice and the petition.” However, this is not the case under the J.G. Kern ruling.
Should the NLRB’s ruling be upheld, it “will further incentivize incumbent unions to file unfair labor practice charges to chill employees’ Section 7 ability to collect petitions,” the brief concludes.
“The NLRB’s blatant disregard for the rights of workers who don’t want anything to do with coercive unionism is on full display in this case,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The arbitrary cherry-picking of legal precedents to fit the Board’s agenda is outrageous, while expected, given the Biden Administration’s all-out effort to expand Big Labor’s coercive ranks.
