Virginia, Kentucky Workers Slam Union Officials with Charges for Illegal Dues Deductions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses seized full dues over employeesâ clear objections, despite state Right to Work laws
â[I]t is time union officials accept that âno means no,ââ said Buitoni employee Steven Ricketts, who is fighting to stop all dues as provided by Virginiaâs Right to Work law.
DANVILLE, VA â For workers under the protection of Right to Work laws, union membership and financial support are supposed to be strictly voluntary. However, as recent cases brought with Foundation legal aid for workers in Kentucky and Virginia demonstrate, even in the 27 states that currently have Right to Work laws, union bosses will often attempt to illegally seize dues over workersâ objections.
âLiving in Right to Work Virginia, it is outrageous that we need to take legal action just to stop union dues from being seized against our will,â commented Steven Ricketts, one of two employees at Buitoni Food Company who recently filed charges against United Steelworkers (USW) Local 9555. âI donât want my money supporting the United Steelworkers union, and it is time union officials accept that âno means noâ when a worker resigns from the union and revokes their dues authorization.â
Ricketts and fellow employee Donald Hale each hand-delivered letters to both USW union officials and to their employer, formally resigning their union memberships and revoking their dues check-off authorizations.
Steelworkers Bosses Ignore 75-Year-Old Virginia Right to Work Law
After the workersâ letters were delivered, dues deductions briefly stopped only to quickly resume. In the case of Ricketts, Buitoni Food Company not only restarted union dues deductions but also deducted double the dues amount in a subsequent paycheck. Deductions from Mr. Haleâs paycheck also resumed without his authorization after a short period.
Mr. Ricketts sent an email to the companyâs human resources department after the dues seizures restarted and was told to contact union officials about it. Each employee sent another letter to the United Steelworkers union, specifically requesting copies of their dues check-off authorizations. However, money continues to be deducted without their consent and without the union officials producing copies of the authorizations that are legally required before any such deductions can occur.
Eventually the workers filed unfair labor practice charges against both the USW and their employer for their respective roles in the unauthorized union dues deductions.
Regarding the Foundationbacked charges, Hale noted: âIâm grateful for the National Right to Work Foundation assistance in enforcing my legal rights, but it really shouldnât take a federal case to cease the collection of union dues.â
Meanwhile in neighboring Kentucky, Shiphrah Green, who works at Fordâs Louisville Assembly Plant, filed similar charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 862 union, as well as the UAW international union and Ford, for illegal union dues deductions.
Kentucky Autoworker Hits UAW Union with Federal Charges
Green notified both Ford and UAW union officials in April 2022 that she was resigning her union membership and cutting off all union dues deductions from her wages, as is her right under Kentuckyâs Right to Work law. Instead of honoring her request, Green instead received an email from UAW Local 862âs president notifying her that Green needed to be shown the allegedly âcorrectâ method to leave the union.
During a subsequent meeting with union officials at the UAW union hall, UAW officials subjected Green to interrogation about why she wanted to leave the union, and also demanded she sign a letter listing âbenefitsâ Green would supposedly forgo if she went through with exiting the union. Longstanding NLRB precedent makes such restrictions on resignation illegal, as was the UAW Local 862 presidentâs coercive statement to Green that âif it were up to me, youâd lose your job for leaving the union.â
Despite Greenâs resignation and requests to cut off union dues, UAW and Ford did not stop dues deductions. While Green continued trying to get Ford management to end the dues deductions, her efforts proved futile, as Ford officials gave her several confusing responses and even told her that she could only cease dues deductions in February 2023, even though the previously authorized dues deduction document could be revoked at will.
Finally, after getting the runaround from both Ford and the UAW, Green filed charges with the NLRB in October using free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. As this issue went to print, Labor Board regional officials were conducting an investigation to see if Ford and the union should be prosecuted for illegal dues seizures.
Foundation Attorneys Play Essential Role in Limiting Union Boss Power
âAs thousands of Foundation cases have demonstrated — whether in Right to Work states or forceddues jurisdictions, or whether litigated for government employees or private sector workers — limits on union bossesâ power to seize money from workers mean little if they arenât enforced,â commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
âVirginia has had a Right to Work law on the books for over 75 years, while Kentuckyâs Right to Work law is barely over five years old, but in both commonwealths, union bosses are illegally seizing union dues,â added Semmens. âThese cases show why defending and enforcing workersâ Right to Work protections has been and will remain a top priority of the Foundation.”
Foundation Freedom of Information Act Request Exposes NLRB Bias against Workers
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Emails show NLRB insiders cheered Bidenâs unprecedented attack on agencyâs âindependenceâ
After Foundation attorneysâ FOIA request revealed pro-Biden bias pervading the âindependentâ NLRB, Foundation staffers secured coverage for the findings in some of the nationâs top outlets.
WASHINGTON, DC â National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have uncovered, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) staff emails that expose the partisan response to unprecedented power grabs launched by the Biden Administration at the behest of Organized Labor.
Biden Power Grab Prompts Records Request
The FOIA request was filed to provide further details surrounding Bidenâs unprecedented and legally dubious removal of Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who had sided with Foundation-represented workers in several cases in which they sought to resist union boss coercion. The emails show widespread partisan bias throughout the agency, which is charged with neutrally enforcing federal labor law.
Under long-standing federal law, the NLRB General Counsel has unreviewable authority to prosecute unfair labor practice charges, including those brought by workers against union officials. To protect that authority from blatant political interference, Congress gave the General Counsel a four-year term. Once appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, no General Counsel in the history of the NLRB had ever been fired. That changed when, just minutes after Biden took office on January 20, 2021, his administration moved to fire Robb despite 11 months remaining on his term.
NLRB Officials Celebrated Biden Attack on Labor Boardâs Top Prosecutor
Following Bidenâs election with the backing of Big Labor officials who wanted to shield themselves from accountability at the NLRB, Biden was encouraged by union bosses to remove General Counsel Robb and replace him with a union partisan. Five days after the removal of Robb, Biden fully obliged, selecting career NLRB bureaucrat Peter Sung Ohr as Acting General Counsel. The FOIA-requested emails show that although some NLRB officials were surprised by Bidenâs actions — with one career NLRB attorney noting the move was ânot expectedâ — some current and former NLRB officials voiced their approval of the unprecedented actions that fly in the face of the prosecutorial independence that Congress sought to protect when the General Counselâs office was established. Los Angeles-based NLRB Region 31 Director Mori Rubin sent an email to her colleagues reacting to the news that Alice Stock, then the number-two attorney at the agency, had been fired along with Robb. Rubin derided Stock as a âcloneâ of Robb. She said âthere is talk that Peter Ohr may be appointed acting GC, which would be wonderful!â Respondents to the thread, whose names are redacted, proclaimed: âGo Biden!!â, âThat would be terrific!â and âHope this comes true!â
Within days Ohr rescinded almost a dozen guidance memos issued by Robb, including one ensuring workers could avoid funding union political and lobbying activities, another allowing workers to intervene in legal actions that are used to block efforts to secure decertification votes, and yet another strengthening unionsâ obligations to workers subject to union boss monopoly bargaining. In all these instances Ohr took the position advocated by union officials who had backed Bidenâs election campaign, and against those of Foundation-backed employees.
Ohr earned praise for his aggressive implementation of the Biden agenda. Among the emails unearthed in the FOIA request was a message to Ohr from longtime NLRB attorney Emily Hunt describing her reaction on the day of Bidenâs inauguration when she learned that Robb had been removed: âI exclaimed to myself, âThis day just keeps getting better and better!ââ Hunt, whose career with the NLRB spanned over 30 years, commended Ohr for rescinding Robbâs memos.
Foundation Spreads the Word About Activism within NLRB
The NLRB emails received coverage from multiple outlets including Fox Business, The Epoch Times, and Reuters. The coverage exposed the favoritism of many inside the NLRB towards union officials despite the Boardâs directive to apolitically enforce federal labor law.
âBy celebrating Joe Bidenâs unprecedented attack on the Boardâs independence so openly, the NLRB officials in these emails make it clear that those inside their agency do not want the Board to be an independent enforcer of the law as Congress intended,â said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. âInstead, these partisans want the Board to be an activist agency with a mission of advancing union boss power at the expense of the rights of rank-and-file workers.â
Workers Nationwide Continue Efforts to Oust Steelworkers Officials
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Successful ousters in Louisiana and New Jersey emphasize importance of protecting worker votes
Michael Cobourn and his coworkers were forced to pay union dues while USW union bosses seemed to be loafing it at their workplace. With Foundation aid, they ousted the union.
WASHINGTON, DC â In the space of just a month, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys successfully aided groups of workers in New Jersey and Louisiana in voting out United Steelworkers (USW) union officials they opposed. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified both votes.
In Louisiana, Ryne Fox led his coworkers at GEO Specialty Chemicals to a decisive victory over USW officials, while Michael Cobourn did the same with his fellow workers at Gold Bond Building Products in New Jersey.
Both cases demonstrated the struggles workers face when seeking to âdecertifyâ union officials whom they no longer want in power. In Louisiana, Fox had to time the filing of his coworkersâ petition seeking a decertification vote to fall within a tiny window of days imposed by the âcontract bar,â a union boss-friendly NLRB policy that protects union officials from being voted out of a workplace for up to three years after union bosses and management finalize a contract.
Cobourn and his colleagues, in addition to having to deal with the âcontract bar,â work in the non-Right to Work state of New Jersey — meaning they were forced to pay money to the union just to keep their jobs during the entire time they were forbidden by the âcontract barâ from ejecting the union. In contrast, Right to Work states protect private sector workers from being fired merely for refusal to pay dues or fees to union officials of whom they disapprove. âMy coworkers and I were paying money to the Steelworkers union constantly, yet the union didnât seem to be doing anything for us,â commented Mr. Cobourn.
Although the efforts in Cobournâs and Foxâs workplaces are evidence that Steelworkers union officials nationwide place their own interests above the workers they claim to ârepresent,â the most heinous example of such behavior is ongoing in Franklin, Pennsylvania.
There, Foundation-assisted metal workers at Latrobe Specialty Metals/Carpenter Technology are holding their own in defending their decertification petition against Steelworkers officialsâ claims that the âcontract barâ should invalidate the petition.
PA Workers Score Victory in Fight Against Election-Blocking Steelworkers Chiefs
While invoking the âcontract barâ alone is anti-worker, Steelworkers officials in Pennsylvania claimed that a contract they unilaterally âratifiedâ this past summer after workers had voted against it twice should trigger the âcontract bar.â Steelworkers officials had even told workers that the contract would only be âactivatedâ if workers voted for it. But once they got wind of the workersâ decertification push, the officials âratifiedâ the unpopular contract secretly so they could, as one union official outrageously said during a hearing, âprotect the integrity of the union.
Foundation staff attorneys representing the employee who submitted the petition, Kerry Hunsberger, have so far beaten back union officialsâ attack on worker free choice. On November 18, 2021, an NLRB Regional Director rejected union bossesâ attempt to block the vote and ordered that an election proceed.
âContract Barâ Encourages Union Officials to Impose Unpopular Contracts
âWorkers across the country are increasingly exercising their right to vote out union officials they oppose, and we at the Foundation are happy to aid them,â commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. âHowever, weâre also acutely aware of the obstacles that stand in the way of this freedom, and one of those, which Steelworkers officials seem to have no reservations about exploiting, is the âcontract bar.ââ
âThe unjustified âcontract barâ is always wrong because it prevents workers from voting out unions they oppose when they want. But even worse, this NLRB-invented doctrine actually incentivizes union officials to rush and impose unpopular, self-serving contracts for the very purpose of insulating the unionâs forced representation powers from a vote of the workers union officials claim to ârepresent,ââ Mix added.
Foundation to High Court: Time to End Union Boss Vandalism Exemptions
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case asks if Teamsters are immune from liability for property destruction during strike
Rod Carter sought Foundation help after he was stabbed and beaten by Teamsters militants in 1997. The Foundation still fights union violence and opposes union bossesâ attempts to dodge property damage lawsuits.
WASHINGTON, DC â Unions and union officials already have an enormous number of special privileges under the law enjoyed by no other private organization or individual. Yet those special powers — including forcing workers under monopoly ârepresentationâ and union dues payments they oppose — havenât stopped union lawyers from arguing for even more special exemptions.
In a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices are set to decide whether the Washington State Supreme Court was correct when it granted Teamsters union officials immunity from lawsuits filed under state law. The lawsuit in this case concerned vandalism and property damage against an employer that occurred during a union boss-ordered strike.
Union Chiefs Want Blank Check to Target Workers with Property Damage
In Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, a construction company sued the Teamsters union over property damage deliberately caused as part of a strike, only to see the Washington Supreme Court overturn the lower court and agree with union bossesâ argument that unions were exempt from such lawsuits.
With the issue now before the nationâs highest court, the National Right to Work Foundation filed a brief in the case arguing that creating such a carve-out is wrong under the law. The Foundation brief says this exemption is dangerous not only to businesses but first and foremost to independent-minded workers, and that union officialsâ abundance of government-granted powers should be pared back, not extended. Oral arguments are set for January 10, 2023.
The Foundation explains in the amicus brief that âstatesâ interest in protecting life, limb, and private property must be respected under principles of federalismâ because federal courts usually donât offer relief for crimes like vandalism and property damage, making state courts the only place where lawsuits can be filed for such behavior. Far from being a concern only for employers who face union strike efforts, the Foundation argues, employees are often targeted by hostile or violent strike behavior and state courts often are the only forum in which they can receive justice.
âFor example, in Clegg v. Powers, employees sought damages in state court for union violence and property damage during a strike,â the brief says. âCases like Clegg demonstrate that the Court should limitâ unionsâ ability to dodge being sued in state court, it continues.
Foundation: Union Officialsâ Special Legal Privileges Shouldnât Be Expanded
The Foundationâs brief then points out that the Teamsters bossesâ attempt to gain this new legal privilege should be shut down given âthe extraordinary privileges and exemptions already granted to unionsâ by Congress and courts all over the country.
These include, but are not limited to, an exemption from federal law prohibiting extortionate violence, the power to force employees in non-Right to Work states to pay union dues or fees just to stay employed, and the privilege to foist monopoly ârepresentationâ over workers against their will — powers no other private entity or individual has.
âThis Court should treat unions like all other citizens or entities, clarifying that they can be liable for damages in state courts under âthe common law rule that a man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct,ââ the brief concludes.
Unions Shouldnât Get More Rights Than Regular Citizens
“Union officialsâ theory that they should be off the hook in state court for damaging or vandalizing property is outrageous on its face. The law already has plenty of carve-outs and privileges for union hierarchies that no other private organization or citizen gets to enjoy, least of all the workers union bosses claim to ‘represent,'”â commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“Union officials regularly force millions of workers to pay union fees or be fired, and force their ârepresentationâ on millions of workers who bitterly oppose it. The Supreme Court should reject this new ploy seeking another union-only exemption to regular laws, and begin to scrutinize and ultimately roll back the many existing union boss special powers.”
Blockbuster Foundation Case Successfully Ends Discriminatory Film Union Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Faced with prosecution, IATSE union bosses will stop âbumpingâ non-members off film shoots
Thatâs a wrap: Movie electrician James Harkerâs settlement ended an entrenched system of discrimination against non-members, perpetrated by IATSE union bosses.
NEW YORK, NY â James Harker, a New York-based movie production electrician, has a resume filled with big-name films that take place in the Big Apple, including Elf, Spider-Man 3, Men in Black II, and, recently, Steven Spielbergâs 2021 West Side Story.
But, while helping these and many other silver screen stories come to life, he witnessed a much more sinister plot unfolding among his fellow production workers. Production staff who were not International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union members would often get âbumpedâ off of their positions on film shoots if union members became available and wanted those jobs, merely because the non-members lacked union membership.
Labor Board Agrees Film Production Union Committed Host of Violations
Many of his colleagues turned a blind eye to this so-called âbumping.â Though it was obviously discriminatory, it was an entrenched industry practice, and many were too afraid to challenge union bossesâ facilitation of the scheme. But in March 2021, Harker decided it was time to stand up, and he began a case that would soon end the practice.
Harker filed federal charges against the union in March 2021 and January 2022. In May 2022, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 in Brooklyn issued a complaint finding that many of the activities described in Harkerâs charges were indeed violations of federal law. Harker then requested and received Foundation attorneysâ free legal aid.
The complaint was the NLRBâs first step toward prosecuting IATSE Local 52 not only for âbumping,â but also for forbidding production companies to hire non-members without permission from top union bosses, for forcing non-members to go through the union to apply for jobs, for requiring union members with hiring authority to exhaust all union member hiring options before hiring non-members, and for perpetrating other violations of federal labor law.
Following the complaint, rather than face National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys who were providing Harker with free legal aid at trial, IATSE Local 52 union officials backed down and settled the case in October 2022 to avoid further prosecution.
Settlement Spells Final Act for Discrimination Against Non-members
The settlement orders IATSE Local 52 to comply with a number of requirements, including that union bosses will no longer ârequire nonmember . . . employees to obtain work through the Union,â âwill not interfere with employers and their agents hiring nonmembers without first obtaining approval from the Union,â and âwill not require employers to allow members to bump nonmembers off of productions because of the nonmembersâ lack of membership with the Union.â
The settlement also required IATSE union officials to attend mandatory training on employee rights and hiring procedures, and to distribute the NLRB notice broadly to members and non-members.
âIATSE union officialsâ scheme to keep non-member production workers off the job is a classic example of union officials prioritizing power and control over workersâ individual rights,â commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. âThe Foundation was proud to back Mr. Harker, who recognized the patent injustice of this arrangement.â
âFilm crew members who have exercised their right not to affiliate with a union should know that they canât be required to go through union officials to look for work, and canât be âbumpedâ off a job just so a union member can get it,â LaJeunesse added. âUnfortunately, Foundation attorneysâ experience is that these types of unlawful schemes are pervasive in the entertainment industry, where near-total union boss control combined with the fear of union retaliation keeps most workers too scared to defend their rights.
Another Janus Victory: South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally Seized Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Foundation-backed challenges to Janus restrictions also pending at U.S. Supreme Court
Stop Requested: Tyron Foxworth and his fellow South Jersey Transportation Authority bus drivers told union officials to cease union dues to no avail, until Foundation staff attorneysâ lawsuit forced union bosses to back down.
CAMDEN, NJ â Toward the end of 2021, South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) bus driver Tyron Foxworth and his colleagues Doris Hamilton, Karen Burdett, Karen Hairston, Ted Lively, Arlene Gibson, and Stanley Burke decided they had had enough of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) union bossesâ so-called ârepresentationâ and opted out of union membership. Union cards they had signed indicated that the union would cease taking money from their paychecks in January 2022.
But, January 2022 came and went, and neither Foxworth nor his fellow independent-minded colleagues saw dues deductions stop. As a result, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, they filed a First Amendment federal civil rights lawsuit against the IFPTE union. They argued that union officials violated their First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court precedent by continuing to seize dues despite their objections.
IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About
In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. It also ruled that union officials can only deduct dues from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in federal court, IFPTE union lawyers backed down and settled the case. As the settlement ordered, union bosses have now given back all money they seized unconstitutionally from Foxworth and his objecting coworkers, plus interest. The settlement also bars the IFPTE union from demanding or seizing any dues from the drivers going forward.
According to Foxworth and his colleagues, IFPTE dues deductions cards led them to believe that dues opt-outs would become effective on either the January or July following a request. However, the unionâs monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA recognized dues revocations only in July. The drivers never consented to this greater restriction.
Foundation attorneys argued in the lawsuit that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workersâ consent, âviolate[d] Plaintiffsâ First Amendment right to free speech and association.â
Foxworth and his coworkersâ victory is the latest of numerous Foundation-won cases to vindicate American public workersâ First Amendment Janus rights. In the past few years, class action lawsuits brought by Foundation staff attorneys have led to settlements freeing tens of thousands of Ohio public employees from American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union schemes illegally restricting the exercise of their Janus rights.
Courageous public workers from California and Nevada are also asking the Supreme Court to take the next step and declare such Janus restrictions clearly violative of the First Amendment.
Lifeguards, Police Officer Battle Blatantly Unconstitutional Restrictions
Foundation attorneys just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear several Southern California lifeguardsâ suit against a so-called âmaintenance of membershipâ scheme that California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials are using to trap the lifeguards in membership and full dues payments years after they resigned, in direct opposition to Janus.
Also awaiting Supreme Court review of her case is Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro, who with Foundation aid is battling an arrangement imposed by Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union officials that forbids the exercise of her Janus rights for over 90 percent of the year.
âUnion officials across the country continue to enforce schemes that give them — not the workers they claim to ârepresent– control over the exercise of Janus rights, meaning more money in union coffers while employeesâ constitutional rights are squashed,â commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. âWhile many union bosses, aware of the indefensibility of their actions, run screaming from facing Foundation attorneys on Janus issues and settle quickly, American public workers should also know that Foundation attorneys will fight all the way up to the Supreme Court to ensure their First Amendment rights are protected.â
Workers Win Cash Back in Case Challenging Illegal Discrimination for Non-Union Status
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Machinists union scheme sought to deny non-union workers’ bonuses because they opposed union association
IAM bosses regularly discriminate against dissident workers. In 2011, Foundation-assisted South Carolina Boeing employee Dennis Murray recounted how IAM officials tried to shutter his plant because workers there had voted the IAM out.
RIDGWAY, PA â Twelve nonunion factory employees at Clarion Sintered Metals, Inc., have each received $1,000 in back pay bonuses after being illegally discriminated against by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Local 2448 and their employer. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, factory worker James Cobaugh filed federal charges against Clarion and IAM as he sought justice for himself and other non-member workers subject to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Cobaughâs charges against the union and his employer were filed on April 22, 2022, with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges came after the union and Clarion Sintered Metals gave $1,000 bonuses to union members, but denied them to workers who exercised their legal right not to join the union. Rather than face prosecution by the NLRB, both the union and employer have now agreed to settle the case.
In addition to the non-union employees receiving the bonuses they were previously denied as a result of the illegal discrimination, both the IAM and Clarion Sintered Metals are required to post notices that inform workers of their right to refrain from joining a union. The notices also state union officials will not maintain or enforce such discriminatory agreements going forward.
Machinists Union Bosses Already Forced Non-Union Workers to Pay Dues
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force workers to pay up to 100% of union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. This means that Mr. Cobaugh, although not a formal IAM union member, can be forced to pay up to 100% of IAMâs union dues to keep his job at Clarion Sintered Metals.
Even in Right to Work states, under federal law union bosses are granted the power to impose ârepresentationâ on individual workers against their will, including forcing non-member workers under union monopoly contracts they oppose. By stripping workers of their right to bargain for their own terms and conditions of employment, individual workers by law are prohibited from negotiating for themselves with their employers for better conditions.
Forced Union Monopoly âRepresentationâ Long Used to Discriminate
Union officials frequently use these government-granted powers to harm certain workers, for example those workers who, based on their productivity, would otherwise earn performance bonuses or higher compensation. Although union officials can impose one-size-fits-all monopoly contracts that favor some workers over others, there are some limits on how union monopoly powers can be used to discriminate.
The U.S. Supreme Court imposed these limits after union officials wielded their powers to negotiate and enforce racially discriminatory contracts (Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. et al.). Explicitly discriminating against workers who exercise their legally protected right to not formally join a union and not be subject to internal union rules, as the IAM officials did in this case, has also long been illegal.
âThis situation highlights how workers less knowledgeable of their legal rights are susceptible to blatantly illegal tactics of power-hungry union bosses,â commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. âMr. Cobaugh courageously stood up to the unionâs unlawful actions, not only for himself, but also for the other non-member workers subjected to this illegal discrimination.â
Foundation Attorneys & PA Metal Workers Fight Steelworkers Union Contract Deception
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses lied to metal workers and covertly signed forced-dues contract to keep grip on power
In NLRB documents, Steelworkers union officials openly defended their deception of employees, calling such behavior âirrelevantâ to whether they should remain in power.
FRANKLIN, PA â Workers under the thumb of union bosses have many reasons to oppose the unionâs ârepresentation.â It could be they oppose a bad contract the union negotiated, or maybe it is the unionâs divisive political activity for candidates they oppose. Whatever the reason, workers have a right under federal labor law to vote to free themselves of such unwanted union ârepresentation.â
But federal labor law also has no shortage of workarounds for union bosses bent on clinging to their monopoly bargaining power over workers. Kerry Hunsberger and her coworkers at Latrobe Specialty Steelâs Franklin, PA, facility are currently defending their right to throw out unpopular Steelworkers union officials, after the union chiefs secretly signed a contract workers had voted down twice.
Steelworkers Officials Tried to Dodge Employee Accountability
Steelworkers chiefs did so to activate a so-called âcontract barâ and remain in power at the plant when they knew a decertification election was coming. Steelworkers officials held two ratification votes to make workers think they had control over whether the contract went into effect. But in reality, union officials have no legal obligation under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute that governs private sector labor relations, to even conduct such a ratification vote, much less heed the workersâ actual vote tally.
The pro-union boss National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) created out of whole cloth the âcontract barâ policy. It immunizes union officials from employee-backed attempts to vote out a union for up to three years after union bosses and management finalize a contract — even a contract that isnât supported by a majority of workers.
Hunsbergerâs petition asking the NLRB to hold a vote to remove the union contains the requisite number of signatures under NLRB rules, but union officials argue the âcontract barâ should block the election anyway.
Union Bosses Ignored Two Votes by Workers Rejecting Forced-Dues Contract
The Latrobe Specialty Steel workers first voted July 25 on the contract drawn up by Steelworkers union officials. The workers soundly rejected the contract, and Hunsberger began collecting employee signatures for a decertification petition shortly afterwards.
According to documents and transcripts filed with the NLRB, when Steelworkers union officials discovered a decertification petition was circulating, they secretly and hurriedly signed the unpopular contract on July 28, without telling the employees or the employer, in an attempt to activate the âcontract barâ rule and avoid being voted out.
The slapdash contract lacked basic In NLRB documents, Steelworkers union officials openly defended their deception of employees, calling such behavior âirrelevantâ to whether they should remain in power. elements, like start and end dates. Even though the union now claims this contract was immediately in effect on July 28, union officials held a new employee ratification vote on August 1, encouraging workers to âratifyâ the contract. But the union bosses never told the workers their âvoteâ was a meaningless sham because union officials had already signed the forced-dues contract in secret.
Hunsbergerâs decertification petition was filed at 2:00 PM on August 1, just hours before the sham contract vote occurred. As with the previous vote, the workers rejected the contract by a lopsided margin. But later that night, at around 9:00 PM, union officials suddenly announced to the employer that the contract was already in effect and the employee ratification âvoteâ was irrelevant because of the union bossesâ covert signing on July 28.
In sworn testimony, one union boss admitted that Steelworkers union bosses execute contracts despite employees voting them down, and that union officials deceived the Latrobe workers and ignored their votes in this case âto protect the integrity of the union.â Apparently the Steelworkers bossesâ lust for monopoly bargaining power and compulsory union payments takes precedence over the actual wishes of the rank-and-file workers union officials purport to ârepresent.â
âContract Barâ Encourages Unions to Force Through Unpopular Contracts
âSteelworkers union bosses drew up a contract that my coworkers and I hated, so naturally we wanted them out of our workplace and out of our pocketbooks. But to add insult to injury, they apparently didnât even think they owed us a duty of honesty,â said Hunsberger.
âThis entire ordeal has been incredibly frustrating and we are grateful for the help of the National Right to Work Foundation in defending our right to vote the union out.â
Kerry Hunsbergerâs Foundationbacked brief defending her and her coworkersâ rights states that the Steelworkersâ contract ploy is ânothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular union to entrench itself and bar employee free choiceâ under federal law.
âThe âcontract barâ arbitrarily blocks, often for years, workersâ statutory right under federal law to vote out union officials they oppose. Worse, it encourages union officials to cynically impose a contract at all costs, especially when union bosses know rank-and-file workers would see such a contract as a reason to get rid of so-called union ârepresentation,ââ commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. âThis case presents an easy choice for the NLRB: defend the rights of rank-and-file workers, or side with Steelworkers union officials, who repeatedly misled those workers and disregarded their votes simply to protect union power. The case also demonstrates that there is no such thing as âunion democracyâ in America.â
Foundation Defends Grocery Employees Against Illegal Union Strike Fine Threats
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Facing Foundation attorneys, UFCW union officials are dropping illegal fines
UFCW union officials threatened to fine King Soopers employee Nick Hall almost $1,000 just because he kept at his job during a strike. Foundation litigation ended the demands.
DENVER, CO â Grocery store workers at King Soopers are continuing to win their legal battles against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union officialsâ illegal attempts to fine workers for exercising their right to work during a January UFCW strike action. While the union remains under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a series of charges filed by workers with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, several workers have already successfully challenged thousands of dollars in union fines.
Workers Slam Union With Federal Charges After Threats
Two King Soopers workers, Nick Hall and Marcelo Ruybal, filed federal charges against UFCW in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine workers who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. UFCW union bosses ordered an estimated 8,000 King Soopers workers out of work in January, but as a Foundation legal notice informed workers at the time, employees have the legal right to rebuff union boss strike orders, and non-member employees cannot be legally fined by the union.
Union bosses threatened Hall and Ruybal with fines of $812 and $3,800 respectively. This happened despite the fact that, as the workers noted in their NLRB charges, the fines were illegal because the workers were not voluntary union members, and therefore not legally subject to internal union fines for working during the UFCW boss-ordered 10-day strike. Some 30 NLRB charges are still being investigated by NLRB Region 27, based in Denver.
Foundation Legal Aid Prompts UFCW Bosses to Drop Fine Threats
In Hall’s case, the union backed down, rescinding the unionâs illegal fine threat in a letter dated July 27, essentially acknowledging that it broke federal law. Other workers have also successfully challenged union boss fine threats following the January strike.
With free legal representation from Foundation staff attorneys, worker Yen Chan challenged the unionâs authority to issue a $3,552.48 fine, with union officials backing down rather than pursuing the fine and facing further legal action. Other King Soopers workers also successfully challenged thousands of dollars in UFCW strike fines using information provided by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
“Union officials backed down quickly after being caught blatantly disregarding the law in Nick Hall’s case. But it shouldnât take the support of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just to force union bullies to abide by federal law,â commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “King Soopers workers are continuing to beat back illegal fines levied by UFCW union officials, even as union officials are still under investigation by the NLRB for unfair labor practice charges.”
California Lifeguards Ask Supreme Court to Blow Whistle on Dues-Trap Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationâs bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bossesâ âmaintenance of membershipâ scheme drowns California lifeguardsâ Janus rights for four years
These California lifeguards can ride the waves, but they certainly didnât âwaiveâ their Janus rights. In their Supreme Court bid, they hope to stop union bosses from locking them out of their First Amendment rights for years.
LOS ANGELES, CA â National Right to Work Foundation client Jennifer Marshall, an Orange County, CA, lifeguard, told the Los Angeles Times in May how hard California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials pushed union membership on her and her colleagues.
âThey really pushed us to sign up for the union without a lot of information behind it,â said Marshall. âIt was kind of a sign-the-papers-and-weâll-talk-about-it-later kind of thing.â After she signed up, she hardly ever saw or heard from union officials again but full union dues were coming out of her paycheck.
What she and many of her colleagues, whom union bosses had cajoled into signing up, didnât expect was how hard it would be to exit a union that didnât seem to be doing anything for them. When she and her colleagues tried to resign, CSLEA officials told them that they were stuck in both full union dues payments and full union membership until 2023, pursuant to a so-called âmaintenance of membershipâ requirement.
Marshall, along with lead plaintiff Jonathan Savas and 21 other colleagues, sued CSLEA bosses in federal court in 2020 for violating their constitutional rights. They argued the âmaintenance of membershipâ requirement blatantly infringes on their First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. The lifeguards also sued the state of California for its role in enforcing the unconstitutional dues deductions.
Secret Union Dues Scheme Has Been Illegal for 45 Years
Marshall, Savas, and their fellow lifeguards are now petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their case, arguing CSLEA bossesâ restrictive arrangement even violates Supreme Court precedent that predates Janus.
The lifeguardsâ Foundation provided attorneys argue in the petition that âmaintenance of membershipâ requirements not only flout Janusâ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even violate the Supreme Courtâs now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.
âMaintenance of membershipâ requirements â which force public employees to pay full union dues often for years after they try to resign from the union â are worse than anything permitted by Abood, Foundation staff attorneys argue.
The petition also takes to task CSLEA union bossesâ paltry defense that the lifeguards somehow voluntarily agreed to the âmaintenance of membershipâ scheme. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that union officials can only take dues from a public employeeâs paycheck if that employee gives a âclear and compellingâ waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA unionâs dues deduction forms contained only a âvague referenceâ to an unexplained limit on when withdrawal from membership is permitted, which is not even close to satisfying Janusâ waiver requirement.
âA vague reference to unspecified limitations in âthe Unit 7 contract and State lawâ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consentedâ to union membership for four years, the petition says.
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions
The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to strike down cumbersome âmaintenance of membershipâ restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment if the schemes are left unchecked.
âOther states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,â the brief states.
Challenged Scheme Gives Union Bosses Control of Workersâ Janus Rights
ââMaintenance of membershipâ restrictions give union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,â observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.
âThe Supreme Court must intervene in these lifeguardsâ case to protect the First Amendment rights of all American public sector employees, and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions.
