Connecticut State Trooper Wins $260,500 Settlement in Federal Lawsuit Against Police Union and Department Officials
Trooper was demoted after he abstained from funding union politics, CSPU union has now backed down and settled case
Hartford, CT (April 28, 2023) – Connecticut State Trooper Joseph Mercer has won a settlement in his federal civil rights lawsuit against the Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) and Department of Emergency Services (DESPP) officials, in which he charged them with illegally demoting him for opposing union membership and politics. Mercer received free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Mercer’s suit began in 2016, when he accused the CSPU union, CSPU President Andrew Matthews, and DESPP Commissioner Dora Schriro of knocking him out of a prestigious Operations Sergeant position after he exercised his First Amendment rights to abstain from CSPU membership and not pay dues to support the union’s political activities. The department placed Mercer in a position that offered fewer overtime opportunities and involved less time in the field.
In August 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied motions to dismiss the case filed by CSPU and state officials, allowing the case to proceed. Pressure on defendants increased in May 2022, when the District Court ordered DESPP Commissioner James Rovella, who had replaced Schriro, to turn over additional discovery.
Now, CSPU and DEPP officials have backed down and settled the case. As part of the settlement, Mercer will receive more than two hundred thousand dollars from CSPU and DEPP.
Connecticut State Trooper Groundlessly Fired After Objecting to Union Politics
In May 2015, Sergeant Mercer was appointed Operations Sergeant of the Emergency Services Unit, a prestigious command position that entails significant responsibility for Emergency Services training and field operations. Although Sergeant Mercer had seventeen years of experience, in June 2015, 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.
Mathews filed a second baseless grievance, alleging Mercer had mismanaged an incident involving an 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, the then-Commissioner of the DESPP transferred Mercer out of his Operations Sergeant position to an administrative post. That new position gave Mercer substantially fewer opportunities to work in the field or to accrue overtime pay. 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-won settlement now requires CSPU and the State to pay $260,500.00.
Public Servants Have First Amendment Right to Stop Supporting Union Politicking
“We at the Foundation 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 President Mark Mix. “However, it’s disgraceful that CSPU union officials targeted Mercer, a dedicated public safety officer, with such a vicious 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,” Mix added. “As was obvious in Mercer’s case, unelected public sector union bosses often wield their enormous clout over government to serve the union’s private interests over the public interest. That’s why it’s vital that public employees can exercise their First Amendment Janus right to cut off all financial support of union bosses who are contorting government in this way.”
Louisville Ford Assembly Plant Employee Wins Refund in Case Charging UAW Union Officials and Ford with Illegally Seizing Dues Money
Embattled UAW and Ford back down and settle case; numerous UAW officials currently serving sentences for embezzlement and corruption
Louisville, KY (April 26, 2023) – A Ford Louisville Assembly plant employee has just prevailed in her federal cases against the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 862 union and her employer. Shiphrah Green charged union officials in October 2022 with illegally seizing dues money from her paycheck and threatening her job after she exercised her right to refrain from union membership. Green filed a similar charge against Ford for its role in the scheme.
Green received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who asserted her rights before National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati. In addition to the illegal dues deductions and threats, Green’s October 2022 charges also detailed that UAW and Ford officials had forced her to navigate several unnecessary and unlawful steps to end her financial support for the union.
Foundation attorneys argued that the UAW union and Ford violated her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects American private sector employees’ right to refrain from any or all union activities. Additionally, Kentucky is a Right to Work state, meaning that state law prohibits union officials and employers from requiring workers to join or pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.
Now, pursuant to settlements, Green will be reimbursed for all the dues illegally seized from her paycheck. UAW and Ford must also post notices informing workers that they will no longer continue to take dues from employees’ paychecks after they have resigned from the union, or create unlawful roadblocks to terminating membership or stopping dues deductions.
UAW Officials Block Employee from Exercising Basic Rights
According to her charges, Green sent correspondence to both UAW and Ford officials on April 21, 2022, informing them she was resigning her union membership and cutting off union dues deductions from her wages. Neither granted her request, and Green instead received an email from UAW Local 862’s president notifying her that she must come to the union hall to be shown the purportedly “correct” method to leave the union.
At a meeting with union officials at the UAW union hall on April 25, 2022, UAW officials interrogated Green about why she wanted to leave the union. They also demanded she sign a letter listing “benefits” Green would supposedly forgo if she went through with exiting the union.
The charge contended that NLRB precedent prohibits requiring workers to sign such a document so they can exercise their right to end their union membership and stop dues deductions. UAW Local 862’s president apparently went even further. According to the charge, he told Green “if it were up to me, you’d lose your job for leaving the union.”
As this chain of events with the union was unfolding, Green was also trying to get Ford management to end the dues deductions. This also proved fruitless, as Ford officials gave her several confusing responses and even told her at one point that, under the union monopoly bargaining contract, she could only cease dues deductions in February 2023 – even though paperwork she signed previously stated it could be revoked at will.
The charges contended that Ford violated federal law by “continuing to take full union dues” from Green’s paycheck at union bosses’ behest even after she had requested that they stop. The charges also stated that UAW Local 862 violated the law by continuing to accept those illegally-seized dues, by “restricting her union membership resignation, and by making threatening comments that would chill an ordinary employee’s exercise of Section 7 rights.”
After an investigation into the charges, NLRB Region 9 agreed that Ford and UAW officials’ actions violated federal law. To avoid a federal prosecution for their illegal actions, the company and union quickly settled.
Green’s Foundation-won settlements mandate that Ford and the UAW union return all money taken from Green’s paycheck since April 21, 2022, the date she first tried to resign from the union. UAW officials must also abstain from threatening that “you should or could incur disciplinary problems and job loss with Ford Motor Company Louisville Assembly Plant . . . because you inform us that you are resigning from the union.”
Systemic UAW Disrespect for Workers’ Rights May Be Rampant at Louisville Ford Plant
“The recent federal probe into UAW officials stealing and misusing workers’ money has sent multiple top UAW bosses to jail, and uncovered a shocking culture of contempt for workers’ rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As Ms. Green’s case shows, these issues are systemic and widespread, and any other Louisville Ford Assembly Plant worker facing UAW union boss attempts to coerce union membership or dues payment should contact the Foundation for free aid in protecting their legal rights.”
“Louisville Ford Assembly employees should know that, under Kentucky’s Right to Work law, union bosses can’t force them to join or pay any money to the union as a condition of employment,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Brief at Michigan Supreme Court Blasting TPOAM Union’s Forced Fee Scheme
Union “fee-for-grievance” scheme unlawfully pressures employees to become union members; Right to Work repeal does not make scheme legal
Lansing, MI (April 21, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus brief at the Michigan Supreme Court, opposing a scheme used by Technical, Professional, and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) union officials that weaponizes the union’s control over the grievance process to force nonmember public employees into paying fees to the union.
The case at issue is Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Daniel Lee Renner, in which Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner is challenging TPOAM union bosses’ so-called “fee-for-grievance” arrangement. Under it, union officials deprive Renner and other nonmember public employees of any power to file grievances themselves, and instead mandate that they pay fees to use the union’s grievance system – fees which often amount to a sum far greater than union dues.
Both the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (MERC) and the Michigan Court of Appeals have already rejected union officials’ arguments that they can refuse to file grievances for nonmembers unless nonmembers pay union fees. In Renner’s case, union officials demanded $1,290 from him simply to process his grievance to the first stage. Additionally, the union made clear to Renner that if the actual costs were higher as the proceeding continued, he would be responsible for more payments.
The current filing is the second amicus brief that the Foundation has submitted in the case. Notably, it addresses how Michigan legislators’ recent move to repeal the state’s popular Right to Work laws does not save the “fee-for-grievance” scheme from illegality. Michigan’s Right to Work protections prohibit union bosses from forcing workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and remain valid until the repeal takes effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns, which is expected to be sometime in early 2024.
Forcing Nonmembers to Pay into Union Grievance System Violates Free Choice Rights
The brief refutes union arguments that the “fee-for-grievance” scheme does not restrain or coerce Renner or other union nonmembers in violation of their right under Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to refrain from union activity. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that PERA is based on, has consistently been interpreted “more broadly than simply prohibiting union or employer violence or heavy handed reprisals,” the brief points out.
The brief notes that the 1953 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case Hughes Tool Co. specifically held that a union’s refusal to process a nonmember’s grievance because he did not pay a fee violates workers’ right to refrain from union activity under the NLRA. “The NLRB has consistently reaffirmed these principles and Hughes Tool remains good law today,” the brief says.
In addition to ignoring a long line of NLRB precedents, the brief concludes, “TPOAM cavalierly defends its illegal fee on the basis that Renner made a choice to be a nonmember and he is the one requesting TPOAM assistance.” However, because Renner has a right under Michigan law to abstain from union activity, “[t]he fact TPOAM treated him differently because he exercised that statutory right is evidence it committed an unfair labor practice, not a defense.”
“TPOAM union officials’ scheme forcing nonmember public employees to pay into a union grievance system is illegal, just as it was both before and during Right to Work’s enactment in Michigan,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the Foundation’s amicus brief shows, TPOAM’s position ignores mountains of precedent and lets union bosses keep mandating fees designed to force dissenting workers into full union membership, in obvious violation of their rights.”
“Michigan public employees should also know that, as per the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, they can’t be fired for refusal to join or financially support a union,” Mix added.
Worker Advocate: NLRB Erred in Decision That Will Put 270 Nonunion Charleston Port Employees Out of Work
Amicus brief in Fourth Circuit case opposes ILA union bosses’ hostile bid to gain control over all jobs at Leatherman Terminal in South Carolina
Charleston, SC (April 11, 2023) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief opposing the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) union’s gambit to gain control over all jobs at Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal. 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 case involved is South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In the case, the SCPA is challenging the Biden NLRB’s recent ruling permitting ILA union bosses to file lawsuits against any cargo carrier that docks at Leatherman until the union gains control of crane lift equipment jobs at the facility. That work is currently performed by state employees free from the union’s control, and those state employees have performed this work for the SCPA for many decades.
The Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that provides free legal aid to workers facing compulsory unionism abuses, notes in the brief that it has “a strong interest in this case because the inevitable result of the National Labor Relations Board’s erroneous 2-1 decision will be devastating to Charleston, South Carolina port workers who have chosen to work as non-union employees for the State of South Carolina or its Port Authority.”
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 says.
Union’s Aggressive Pursuit of Monopoly Power Will Lead to Hundreds Losing Their Jobs
The brief spells out the dire consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but because of the ILA’s aggressive attempts to enforce its alleged monopoly at the port, “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 wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case, the brief argues. The brief points out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would prioritize those workers far below existing union members because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
ILA Union Has History of Malfeasance and Exploitation
The brief finishes by noting that South Carolina public employees likely want to avoid associating at all costs with the ILA because of the union’s “storied history of exploitation, resulting in a litany of federal prosecutions and civil litigation.” The New York Daily News reported in 2022 that ILA chiefs negotiated deals by which mob-linked longshoremen in the New York/New Jersey area could get paid for 27 hours of “work” per day. The ILA hierarchy organized such arrangements while trying to shut down ports like Leatherman which merely allow both unionized and union-free workers to work side-by-side.
“ILA union officials, aided and abetted by the Biden NLRB, are directly attacking the rights and livelihoods of hundreds of Charleston port employees simply because they work free of union monopoly control,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must reverse the Biden NLRB’s erroneous ruling letting this union gambit move forward, bearing in mind that the real victims here are the nonunion port workers that ILA officials are seeking to have terminated.”
Phoenix CenturyLink Employee Wins Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Seizures
CWA officials illegally refused worker’s membership resignation and request to stop dues deductions
Phoenix, AZ (April 6, 2023) – CenturyLink Communications employee Adrianna Delatorre has forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7019 union officials to back down in her federal case, in which she charged them with seizing dues money illegally from her wages. Delatorre, who filed charges against both the CWA union and her employer at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in May 2022, received free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Delatorre asserted in her charges that CWA union bosses violated her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by rejecting her clear notice that she was resigning union membership and ending union dues deductions from her paycheck. The NLRA guarantees American private sector employees the right to “refrain from any or all” union activities, with some restrictions not applicable to Delatorre.
Delatorre’s right to cut off financial support to the CWA union she opposes is fully protected by Arizona’s Right to Work law, which prohibits union bosses from mandating union membership or any dues payment as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states like Colorado or New Mexico, union officials have the power to force workers to pay union fees just to stay employed.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to pay back to Delatorre all illegally-taken dues, and to refrain in the future from illegally rejecting employees’ requests to stop dues deductions.
CWA Union Blatantly Ignored Worker Request
Delatorre submitted letters to CWA union officials and CenturyLink management in March 2022, informing both that she was terminating her union membership and revoking any dues deduction authorization document. Both union and company officials denied this request and CenturyLink management continued to seize money from Delatorre’s pay at the union’s behest. Delatorre hit her employer and the union with federal unfair labor practice charges in May 2022.
Notably, the dues deduction authorization document (or “checkoff’) that Delatorre revoked did not specify any time limits on when employees could cut off dues, nor did it provide that dues deductions were handled separately from union membership. Delatorre’s Foundation-provided attorneys argued that, on those grounds, Delatorre’s demand to stop union financial support should have been effective as soon as she submitted her letter ending her membership.
CWA union officials have now backed down and settled the case. In addition to paying back to Delatorre all money unlawfully taken from her paycheck since the date she resigned her membership, CWA union officials must also post a notice in Delatorre’s CenturyLink Tower workplace stating that they will not “cause or attempt to cause an employer to deduct union dues from an employee’s paycheck without having a valid dues deduction authorization signed by the employee.” As part of the settlement, CenturyLink must also not “render unlawful assistance and support to the Union.”
Employee Defended Rights Under AZ Right to Work Law, but Union-Label DC Politicians Plan to Eliminate Right to Work Nationwide
“Foundation staff attorneys are proud to have helped Ms. Delatorre successfully defend her right under federal law and Arizona’s Right to Work law to refrain from sacrificing part of her hard-earned pay to CWA union officials,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s important to remember that there are forces within the NLRB – including General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, previously a top CWA lawyer – and at other levels of the current Administration pushing for full implementation of the so-called ‘PRO’ Act’s provisions. The ‘PRO-Act’ would ultimately eliminate workers’ Right to Work protections by federal fiat, giving union officials the power to extort millions of additional workers for dues money under threat of termination.”
“Right to Work laws let workers like Ms. Delatorre withhold money from union hierarchies, which often pursue agendas completely out of touch with the rank-and-file the union bosses claim to ‘represent.’ This gives individual employees a way to hold union officials accountable for how they wield government-granted monopoly power over workers,” Mix added.
Lucas County Employees Win Back Unconstitutionally Seized Money from AFSCME Union
Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocked exercise of right for over 90 percent of year
Toledo, OH (April 4, 2023) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have emerged victorious in their federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union. The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, charged AFSCME union bosses in December 2022 with seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute. They asserted their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Now, as part of a settlement, AFSCME Ohio Council 8 must return illegally seized money to each woman, and the union bosses are forbidden from having Lucas County deduct union dues from any of their paychecks going forward. The settlement fully vindicates the employees’ First Amendment Janus rights.
Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues
Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforced a policy against the women which permitted the taking of union dues directly from their wages. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so – an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for more than 90 percent of the year.
AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.
The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” the union imposed.
“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” read the federal complaint.
Employees Often Must Seek Return of Dues Seized Without Consent
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s win is the latest in a chain of successful Foundation-backed lawsuits defending Ohio public servants’ Janus rights. In 2020, for example, Foundation attorneys challenged a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement that AFSCME Ohio Council 11 used to lock public employees out of their Janus rights for three years at a time. Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, Council 11’s union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from the onerous arrangement.
“Once again Foundation-backed Ohio public employees have successfully defended their Janus rights against the schemes of AFSCME union officials, who were more concerned with accumulating dues money than respecting the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights. Instead, before taking dues, union officials should inform workers about their Janus rights and honor those rights.”
“It’s heartening that the union has agreed to resolve this dispute by honoring their former members’ wishes; it’s disappointing that a lawsuit was required to reach that common-sense result,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Iowa-Based Donaldson Company Employees Win Refunds in Case Against UAW Union for Illegal Union Dues Seizures
UAW union must now pay back hundreds to workers who charged union officials with rejecting requests to leave union and cut off dues
Cresco, IA (March 29, 2023) – Four employees of air filter manufacturer Donaldson have prevailed in their federal case against United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 120 union officials, whom they charged with seizing union dues illegally from their paychecks. The workers, Troy Murphy, Esther Kuhn, Darren Walter, and Kory Huber, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Each of the workers filed federal charges against the company and the union in September or October of 2022, maintaining that union and company officials had rejected their requests to end union membership and stop dues deductions. A Foundation-won settlement now requires union officials to return to the workers nearly $1,000 total in unlawfully taken money, and post a notice declaring that the union will no longer ignore or reject worker requests to opt out of membership or dues deductions.
The four workers charged UAW union officials and company officials with violating their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees the right of private sector workers to refrain “from any or all of” union activities. Iowa’s Right to Work law also forbids union bosses from forcing private sector employees to pay any union dues or fees to get or keep a job. In contrast, in non-Right to Work states, union bosses have the power to compel private sector workers to pay a significant portion of union dues as a condition of employment, even under the provisions of the NLRA.
UAW Union Officials Tried to Trap Workers in Dues Deductions Despite No Legal Authority
Kuhn and Murphy sent letters to their employer and the UAW union in April 2022 and June 2022, respectively, informing both parties that they were ending their union memberships and revoking any authorization they had given to take union dues out of their paychecks. Donaldson officials told both employees that neither could exit the union until the union contract was up in October. Charges are still pending against Donaldson.
Federal labor law provides that direct dues deductions can only occur with written authorization from an employee, and even then the deductions are governed only by the specific language on the authorization form – not by the union contract. Neither Donaldson representatives nor the union produced any documents that Kuhn or Murphy had signed agreeing to union dues deductions.
As for Huber and Walter, both sent notices to union and company officials in July 2022 ending union membership and revoking their dues authorizations. Huber’s and Walter’s federal charges point out that neither man’s “checkoff” authorizing dues deductions “contain[ed] language stating [they] agreed to pay dues or fees irrespective of union membership,” meaning that dues deductions should have ceased immediately after Huber and Walter resigned membership. Nevertheless, the union continued to collect dues from their paychecks after they sent in their resignations.
Settlement Orders UAW Bosses to Return Hundreds in Illegally Seized Dues to Workers
After the four employees hit the union with federal charges, UAW officials backed down and settled the case. Now, the union must pay back each employee all dues money seized in violation of their rights dating back to when each of them resigned union membership. In addition, UAW bosses must post a notice at the Donaldson Cresco facility and at the UAW Local 120 union hall stating they “will not fail or refuse to honor your requests to resign your union membership,” “will not fail or refuse to honor your timely requests to revoke your dues checkoff authorizations,” and “will not collect dues without a signed dues checkoff authorization.”
“All across the country, union bosses believe that they are entitled to the money of the workers they thrust under the so-called ‘representation’ of the union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is likely the mentality that UAW union bosses had when they continued to siphon dues from Mr. Murphy, Ms. Kuhn, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Huber, even though each employee clearly exercised their rights under federal law, and Iowa’s Right to Work law, to disaffiliate from this union of which they do not approve.”
“UAW chiefs in particular are notorious for playing fast and loose with workers’ money, something apparent after a federal probe has hit at least 11 former UAW executives with jail sentences for corruption and embezzlement,” Mix added. “While Iowa’s legislators have preserved the basic right of their private sector employees to cut off funding for union hierarchies that are corrupt or aren’t serving worker interests, it’s sadly ironic that Michigan – the home of the UAW – has just repealed Right to Work protections for its employees.”
National Right to Work Foundation Opposes NLRB Push to Mandate Abusive ‘Card Check’ Unionization Process
Amicus brief in Starbucks case says NLRB General Counsel’s plan will expose workers to coercive union tactics and contradicts SCOTUS precedent
Washington, DC (March 16, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted an amicus brief at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case involving SEIU union organizers’ attempt to impose unionization on workers at Starbucks without a secret ballot vote. The Foundation’s brief, attached to the motion, defends workers at Starbucks and workplaces nationwide from Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s attempt to effectively mandate coercive “card check” organizing campaigns.
In card check campaigns, professional union organizers can pressure workers into signing cards that are then used at “votes” for unionization in lieu of an NLRB-supervised secret ballot vote.
In the ongoing Starbucks case, former union lawyer Abruzzo is attempting to resurrect the long-discredited Joy Silk NLRB theory, which would force union monopoly control on workers who have not had an opportunity to vote in secret on whether they want a union in the workplace. SEIU officials attempted to impose union control on Starbucks baristas using the so-called “card check” process, in which union agents can bypass the traditional secret ballot method of gaining power in a workplace and can obtain union “authorization cards” directly from workers – often using coercive or misleading tactics.
Card check schemes are recognized by court and NLRB precedents and even AFL-CIO organizing handbooks as inaccurate gauges of true employee support for union control. Despite this, the Joy Silk theory that NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo seeks to revive forbids employers from challenging the results of a card check unionization.
Employers can contest the results of a card check by asking the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot union vote among the employees. Conversely, under Joy Silk, the NLRB has the power to force both workers and employers under union control if an employer objects to the results of a card check.
“Now, the General Counsel seeks to upend five decades of settled law to resurrect Joy Silk,” says the amicus brief. “She seeks a regime of instant unionization through compulsory bargaining orders issued to any employer that refuses to recognize a union based on authorization cards, even though such cards were most assuredly not collected through ‘laboratory conditions.’”
Joy Silk Prioritizes Union Power Over Employees’ Will and Conflicts with Court Precedent
The Foundation’s brief argues that card check unionization drives are “notoriously unreliable” for determining whether a majority of employees in a workplace want a union. Because card check schemes lack NLRB oversight and do not permit employees to vote in private, the brief argues, the door is open for union agents to deploy many kinds of pressure tactics, including soliciting ballots, electioneering, keeping lists of employees who have or have not signed cards, and more.
As opposed to employees in a secret ballot election who vote quickly and privately, “[t]his is not true for an employee caught in the maw of a year-long card check campaign, who may be solicited repeatedly and, perhaps coercively, month after month until he or she signs,” the brief says. If General Counsel Abruzzo brings back Joy Silk, that would allow union bosses to “bypass secret ballot elections at will and secure a compulsory bargaining order virtually anytime they are able to collect a bare majority of authorization cards.”
The amicus brief also maintains that the Joy Silk standard is at odds with a large number of court precedents, including from the D.C. Circuit Court (where many NLRB decisions are appealed), other circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court twice. All of these courts have declared at one time or another that “authorization cards are inferior to secret ballot elections,” the brief says.
General Counsel Abruzzo Seeks to Compel Workers into Union Ranks Despite More Than 90% of American Workers Rejecting Unionization
“NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo – a former CWA union official – continues to show her extremist views when it comes to overturning precedent in the pursuit of greater coercive powers for her former colleagues in Big Labor’s upper echelon,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Inevitably, this comes at the expense of the rights of independent-minded American workers, who want the right to choose whether or not they wish to associate with a union, free from the well-documented coercive tactics union organizers deploy during card check drives.”
“Big Labor advocates previously at least understood that a sweeping change to federal labor law, like eliminating secret ballot elections to mandate ‘card check,’ would at least require an act of Congress,” Mix added. “But with the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill dying in 2010 due to bipartisan opposition, and the so-called ‘PRO-Act’ blocked in the last and current Congress, the Biden Administration is apparently moving forward to radically rewrite federal labor law by bureaucratic fiat.”
San Diego Gompers Preparatory Academy Educators Begin New Effort to Oust SDEA Union Bosses from School
Union bosses stymied last attempt with unproven allegations and pressure from elected officials, majority of teachers now back new effort
San Diego, CA (March 13, 2023) – Teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in the Chollas View neighborhood of San Diego, have banded together again to exercise their right to vote San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union bosses out of power at the school.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gompers computer teacher Sean Bentz just submitted a petition to the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), requesting the agency hold a vote among his colleagues on whether to oust the union. The petition contains signatures of a majority of the teachers under the SDEA union’s control.
Bentz’s petition marks the second time in just over three years that Gompers educators have attempted to boot the SDEA union from the school. Gompers chemistry teacher Dr. Kristie Chiscano submitted a decertification petition with Foundation legal aid in October 2019. Despite this petition also having the backing of the requisite number of teachers to spur a decertification vote, SDEA union bosses attempted to avert the election by filing so-called “blocking charges” containing allegations of employer misconduct.
Union officials often manipulate “blocking charges” at the PERB and other state and federal labor relations agencies to stifle worker attempts to eliminate unpopular union “representation.” Despite the PERB never holding a hearing into whether SDEA union bosses’ claims had any merit or whether they were related to the workers’ dissatisfaction with the union, PERB officials denied a decertification election to Chiscano and her colleagues in October 2020.
State Labor Agency’s Rule Aided Union in Blocking Vote
Chiscano’s case defending the first petition to remove SDEA union agents from the school also sought to overturn PERB Regulation 32752, which requires PERB agents and attorneys to accept union bosses’ “blocking charge” allegations as true – a stipulation almost guaranteeing union defeat of any worker attempt to vote a union out.
The initial union decertification effort took place not long after SDEA officials gained power at the school in January 2019 via “card check,” a process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote system to install a union. Gompers made an impressive transition to being a union-free charter school in 2005 after years of being plagued by unresponsive union bureaucracies, violence, and poor academic achievement, so many teachers and parents viewed the reinstallation of union power at the school with suspicion. Some accused SDEA agents of actively sowing division at the school, including by supporting anti-charter school legislation and needlessly disparaging the school’s leadership.
“I chose to work at a school that didn’t have a union and now they’ve come in and they’re running everything about my contract and my work,” Chiscano said at the time.
Union Agents Targeted Teachers Who Led Effort to Vote Out Union
Even worse, shortly after the PERB’s ruling halting the original decertification effort, Chiscano and another Gompers educator filed charges maintaining that SDEA agents targeted them on social media for opposing the union hierarchy. California law makes it illegal for union officials to intimidate or retaliate against employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership.
Union boss-aligned state legislators even chimed in to pressure Gompers management to give in to union demands. In a letter to Gompers management, then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez attacked the National Right to Work Foundation simply for providing legal aid to Gompers educators as they sought to exercise their right to hold a decertification election. Gonzalez was best known during her tenure for authoring AB5, a California law that drastically reduced opportunities for freelance workers and independent contractors across the state.
Teachers’ Union Decertification Efforts Expose Massive Power of California Public Sector Unions
Sean Bentz filed the new decertification petition renewing the fight to oust the union at the earliest time permitted by California labor regulations, which immunize union officials from employee-led decertification efforts for all but a tiny window while union contracts are active. But the new decertification attempt will likely face the same roadblocks of “blocking charges” as the old one.
“The new decertification effort at Gompers Preparatory Academy pits concerned educators against California’s most entrenched special interest – public sector union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In their last endeavor, Gompers teachers, who simply wanted to exercise their right to vote on whether SDEA union bosses deserved to remain in power, faced specious allegations meant to block the vote, union attacks on social media, and even pressure from union-label politicians.”
“Foundation attorneys will proudly fight alongside Gompers teachers to vindicate their rights, but ultimately this effort should expose how California’s labor laws prioritize union bosses’ desire for control over schools and other public services far above the rights of the employees who provide these services,” Mix added.
