CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation, case comes as former CWA official Jennifer Abruzzo is top labor board prosecutor

Galeton, PA (May 4, 2022) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, just hit a Communications Workers of America (CWA) union local with federal charges for seizing dues money from his paycheck illegally, plus money for CWA’s political action committee (PAC). He is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Foundation attorneys filed Coates’ charges at Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Pittsburgh. Coates’ charges come as NLRB General Counsel and former CWA attorney Jennifer Abruzzo has expressed support for a number of policies giving union officials greater power to sweep workers into dues-paying union ranks, even without a vote. Foundation attorneys also requested last year that Abruzzo recuse herself from a case involving an Oregon ABC cameraman who accused another CWA local of demanding illegal dues from him, including dues for politics.

CWA Union Bosses Siphoned Political Contributions, Dues from Worker – and Forced Him to Remain Shop Steward

Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. The charge says a union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.

In December 2021 and January and February of 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages, what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization, and that contributions to the union’s PAC immediately stop being taken from his paycheck.

“To date, the Union has not responded…and dues and contributions continue to be deducted from his wages,” the charge reads.

Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, so unions can legally force them to pay union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions. Additionally, under federal election law, union officials can never force workers to contribute to a union’s PAC.

In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.

Coates’ charge asserts that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.

Coates seeks the return of all money the union took from his paycheck in violation of his rights, and for PAC contributions to cease.

Foundation President: NLRB GC – a Former CWA Union Official – Should Not Get Involved in Case

“CWA officials are brazenly ignoring Mr. Coates’ right to refrain from union activates, so they can continue seizing his money not only for unwanted union activities but also for the increasingly radical politics of DC-based CWA operatives,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The union bosses’ arrogant attitude toward independent-minded workers is mirrored perfectly by NLRB GC Jennifer Abruzzo, who up until recently was also a top, DC-based CWA lawyer and has a track record of stacking the deck against workers who don’t toe the union line.”

“The obvious violations of federal law described in Mr. Coates’ case should make this a quick victory for him. Any meddling in this case by Abruzzo for her former employer will be met with a swift response from Foundation attorneys,” Mix added.

Legal briefs filed for veteran officer rebut union attorneys’ arguments attempting to justify union dues seizures that violate clear Supreme Court precedent

Las Vegas, NV (April 22, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just filed the final brief in a Las Vegas police officer’s federal lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from union dues deductions. The case is now fully briefed and ready to be decided by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer Melodie DePierro is challenging an “escape period” enforced by officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union as an infringement of her constitutional rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. DePierro ended her PPA membership in 2020.

The High Court in Janus ruled that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union hierarchy as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. It also declared that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.

DePierro’s Foundation staff attorneys argue in her reply brief that PPA union officials’ “escape period” policy, which forbids her for over 90% of the year from exercising her First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions, is a blatant violation of Janus.

Further, Foundation attorneys point out that, even though DePierro was a union member years ago, she never consented to being controlled by the “escape period,” which union and police department officials added to the contract without her knowledge. The policy was also absent from the union membership card she signed.

“That a 20-day escape period restriction on employees’ right to revoke was added to a subsequent [contract] does not mean LVPPA can enforce such limitation without first seeking employees’ affirmative consent. DePierro’s First Amendment right against compelled speech and union subsidization would have been protected had LVPPA bothered to seek such consent from her in advance,” Foundation staff attorneys argue.

PPA Union Officials Try to Impose on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About

According to DePierro’s complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. Her response explains that in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions “at will.”

In January 2020 she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.

Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of a union-imposed “escape period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. Union agents rebuffed her again after she renewed her demands in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.

DePierro’s most recent filing in the case refutes a number of union arguments, notably contending that her past union membership did not give the union and police department free reign to create new restrictions on her rights. It also criticizes the lower court for ruling that it was “immaterial” that DePierro never consented to the restrictive revocation period.

“DePierro’s membership form is not a blank check for LVPPA and LVMPD to invent and impose new revocation restrictions against her will, resulting in the forceful seizure of hard-earned wages in violation of her First Amendment right not to bankroll a union,” the brief says.

Vegas Police Officer Seeks to Force Union to Return Dues Seized in Violation of Her Rights

DePierro demands that the U.S. Circuit Court declare the “escape period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues that were unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.

“The Supreme Court was perfectly clear in Janus that public employees must affirmatively waive their First Amendment rights before union bosses take dues from their wages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That PPA union bosses are refusing to give back money they took in obvious violation of this standard is outrageous, and clearly shows that they value dues revenue over the rights of officers they claim to ‘represent’ – including distinguished veterans like Officer DePierro.”

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should uphold the correct interpretation of Janus. Foundation attorneys will keep fighting for Officer DePierro until her rights are vindicated,” Mix added.

Teamsters’ aggressive top-down organizing campaign includes boycott threat, seeks to impose union on workers without even a secret-ballot vote

Santa Rosa, CA (April 11, 2022) – Following multiple inquiries by Amy’s Kitchen employees, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special alert to California and Oregon employees of the vegetarian prepared food company, which is currently the subject of a top-down campaign by Teamsters Local 665 union officials to install union control.

The notice and offer of Foundation staff attorneys’ free legal aid come as Teamsters bosses and allied groups are using increasingly hostile tactics to attack the company, including calling for boycotts of Amy’s Kitchen products. News reports demonstrate many workers oppose the attacks on their employer and want nothing to do with Teamsters union officials.

This union attack strategy is a classic example of a Big Labor “corporate campaign,” in which, rather than seeking to win the voluntary support of workers in a secret-ballot vote, union organizers attack an employer with the goal of having the company assist in imposing the union on the workers, usually via a coercive “card check” scheme. Under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings, union officials armed with a “card check” deal can bypass the secret-ballot election process and gain power in a workplace simply by submitting untested “union cards” to the employer.

The Foundation’s special legal notice informs Amy’s Kitchen workers of their rights to resist affiliating with the Teamsters union, including that they cannot be required to sign any “union cards.” It further alerts workers that there is a long history of union agents using pressure tactics and misleading workers into signing such cards, and informs workers that should they witness such tactics they should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid.

The special alert also apprises Amy’s Kitchen employees of their right to sign counterpetitions expressing opposition to unionization that workers at the facility are currently circulating. Such counterpetitions make it clear workers oppose the Teamsters’ organizing campaign and the Teamster boss-led boycott of Amy’s Kitchen products. The legal notice informs workers that signing a counterpetition can assist in preventing the union from being imposed on them against their will and without a secret-ballot election.

The special alert in both English and Spanish and is available on the Foundation’s website: https://www.nrtw.org/amys-special-notice/ (in English) and https://www.nrtw.org/es/amys-special-notice/ (en español).

Biden Labor Board Targets Independent-Minded Workers

The legal notice comes as Jennifer Abruzzo, the former union lawyer who was installed by President Biden as the NLRB’s General Counsel, is advocating for radical changes to NLRB policies that would expand union bosses’ coercive “card check” powers.

Example after example shows employees are often unaware of the true purpose of “union cards” when pressured by union organizers to sign them. Workers frequently sign merely to get union organizers to leave them alone. In fact, an AFL-CIO organizing guide even admits that a “card check” drive supposedly demonstrating 75 percent support for a union among employees often only translates to a 50/50 chance in a secret-ballot election among the same workers because workers’ signatures made in the presence of one or multiple union agents frequently don’t reflect actual support for the union.

NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo has publicly said she wants to revive the controversial Joy Silk theory, which the NLRB and federal courts rejected a half century ago. Abruzzo seeks to mandate “card check” recognition even if an employer and many workers want the protection offered by a secret-ballot vote before workers are swept into union ranks. As General Counsel, Abruzzo has wide discretion to choose which cases come before the NLRB, and the situation at Amy’s Kitchen might serve as a vehicle for resurrecting Joy Silk.

“If Teamsters officials and their allies truly respected the free and un-coerced choice of the Amy’s Kitchen workers for whom they are claiming to speak, they would not be using such aggressive tactics to try to impose union control from the top down on workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, such tactics are being greenlighted by President Biden’s handpicked Big Labor cronies at the National Labor Relations Board, who in their effort to expand forced union dues ranks want to deprive workers of the protection against union intimidation tactics afforded by a secret-ballot vote.”

“Amy’s Kitchen workers who witness or are subjected to Teamsters organizers’ coercive tactics should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” Mix added.

Union officials tried to limit educator’s First Amendment right to abstain from union financial support to arbitrary “escape period”

Hartford, CT (April 4, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Plainville Community School District educator Christina Corvello successfully exercised her First Amendment right to stop subsidizing the activities of a union she opposes.

Despite Connecticut Education Association (CEA) union officials trying to restrict the exercise of her right to a narrow span of days several months away known as an “escape period,” Corvello was able to opt-out of the union before the “escape period” and is no longer paying dues to the CEA hierarchy.

Corvello invoked her rights under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, in which the Justices recognized that no public worker can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The High Court in Janus also ruled it a First Amendment violation to seize dues from a public employee’s paycheck without his or her affirmative consent.

Educator Believed Union Policies Were Detrimental, but Union Officials Tried to Force Her to Pay Dues

Corvello grew dissatisfied with CEA officials’ policies, including COVID-19 restrictions promoted by union officials, which she believed worked against the interests of students and teachers. When Corvello tried to raise concerns regarding these issues, union officials disregarded her and treated her with disrespect. After union officials ignored her pleas for support and change, Corvello decided to end her union membership and terminate dues deductions.

With guidance from Foundation attorneys, in November 2021 she began sending messages — through email and certified mail — to both union and school officials. In her correspondence, she tried to exit the union and stop dues deductions based on her First Amendment rights recognized in Janus. But the CEA denied her requests to stop funding the union. CEA bosses stated that she could only stop payments yearly during August. Corvello, however, remained undeterred. She continued to ask the union to stop taking her money.

After trying for five months to leave the union and stop funding it, CEA union officials finally backed down in March 2022 after Corvello contacted Foundation attorneys. Dues deductions then stopped.

Battle by Public Servants to Knock Down Union Boss-Invented Janus Restrictions Continues

Corvello’s victory comes at a time when union bosses across the country are trying to defend schemes they use to undermine public sector workers’ Janus rights, including so-called “maintenance of membership” provisions. In a Foundation-backed case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Savas v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA), several California lifeguards are challenging CSLEA union officials’ continued dues seizures from the lifeguards’ paychecks even after they ended their union memberships.

Union bosses alleged that the lifeguards had agreed to “maintenance of membership” language in their contracts that trapped them in union ranks for almost four years after they tried to resign. The contracts did not inform the lifeguards that they were waiving their First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from union financial support for that period of time.

“Even after Janus, public sector union officials routinely trample the First Amendment rights of workers they claim to ‘represent’ in order to fill their coffers with coerced union dues and fees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Such malfeasance often includes limiting these rights to a phony, narrow ‘escape period,’ not informing workers of when they are waiving Janus rights, and not even telling workers that they have these rights in the first place.”

“American public sector workers should know that they can’t be forced to subsidize or associate with a union of which they disapprove. The National Right to Work Foundation is proud to serve as a resource for information on workers’ rights and to provide free legal representation to workers when union officials refuse to comply with Janus,” Mix added.

Union officials took full union dues from nonmember officer without consent, then ignored requests to return illegally-seized money

Cleveland, OH (March 31, 2022) – Cuyahoga County probation officer Kimberlee Warren has just defeated an attempt by Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) union officials to shut down her case asserting that union officials violated her First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and financial support.

With free legal representation from attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation and The Buckeye Institute, Warren contends that FOP union officials ignored her constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision.

A Northern Ohio District Court judge just rejected FOP lawyers’ attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that Warren has no constitutional claim under federal law because, according to union lawyers, the union was not a “state actor” in jointly participating with the state to illegally take money from her paycheck. The judge instead ruled that “Warren has sufficiently pleaded that the FOP acted under color of state law when it continued to collect union fees from Warren’s wages post-Janus.”

With the union lawyers’ motion to dismiss denied, Warren’s case will now continue. Her lawsuit seeks not only the return of all monies that FOP union officials took from her paycheck for more than two years after the Janus decision was handed down, but also punitive damages because FOP showed “reckless, callous” indifference toward her First Amendment rights by repeatedly ignoring her requests to reclaim illegally taken fees.

Union Officials Refused to Return Dues Seized in Violation of First Amendment

In Janus, which was argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the Justices declared it a First Amendment violation to force any public sector employee to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court also ruled that public employers and unions cannot take union dues or fees from a public sector employee unless they obtain that employee’s affirmative consent.

The federal lawsuit says that Warren was not a member of the FOP union before the Janus decision in June 2018, and never signed an authorization for the deduction of union dues or fees from her wages. However, FOP union bosses collected fees and later full union dues from her wages anyway without her consent.

According to the complaint, deductions continued into December of 2020, even after Warren notified union officials that they were violating her First Amendment rights by taking the money and after she demanded that the union stop the coerced deductions and return all money taken from her paycheck since the Janus decision.

When the deductions finally ended, FOP chiefs refused to return the money they had already seized from Warren in violation of her First Amendment rights. They claimed the deductions had appeared on her check stub and thus any responsibility to stop the deductions fell on her – even though they had never obtained her permission to opt her into membership or to take cash from her paycheck in the first place.

According to the lawsuit, Warren also asked FOP bosses to produce any dues deduction authorization document they claimed she had signed. FOP officials rebuffed this request as well, presumably because no such authorization existed.

The High Court ruled in Janus that, because all monopoly bargaining activities public sector unions undertake involve lobbying the government and thus are political speech, forcing a public employee to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job is forced political speech the First Amendment forbids.

Before the Janus ruling, Ohio state law and the union’s monopoly bargaining agreement with Cuyahoga County permitted the union bosses to seize union fees from nonmember workers’ paychecks (including Warren’s) as a condition of employment. FOP union officials took this amount from Warren prior to Janus. After the Janus decision, they covertly designated Warren as a union member and began taking full dues – deducting even more money from her wages than they did before the Janus decision despite the complete lack of consent.

“Although Kimberlee Warren still has a long way to go in her battle to vindicate her First Amendment Janus rights, the fact that the District Court shut down this specious union boss attempt to prematurely end the case likely shows how little ammunition they have,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That FOP union bosses alleged they somehow didn’t break federal law despite refusing to give back dues seized in violation of Warren’s constitutional rights – and despite charging her full union dues after the Janus decision was issued – is arrestingly outrageous.”

“Foundation staff attorneys are proud to stand behind Warren as she fights for her right to refuse to subsidize a union of which she disapproves,” Mix added.

“The Buckeye Institute is pleased that Ms. Warren will have her day in court and confident that she will prevail in her efforts to recover dues that the Fraternal Order of Police — a union Ms. Warren never joined — illegally took from her paycheck,” said Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Buckeye Institute.

Brief at Michigan Supreme Court filed in union lawsuit seeking to force nonmembers to pay union fees in violation of state Right to Work law

Lansing, MI (March 25, 2022) – Today National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in the Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (TPOAM) v. Daniel Lee Renner case currently before the Michigan Supreme Court. In the case, Saginaw County employee Daniel Renner is contesting a union scheme designed to eliminate the Michigan Right to Work law’s protection against forcing employees to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment.

The Foundation’s brief argues that TPOAM bosses’ “fee-for-grievance” arrangement violates Michigan’s Right to Work law, as it weaponizes union bosses’ extraordinary power over the grievance process in order to coerce nonmember workers forced under the union’s monopoly contract into paying union fees. Because workers under union monopoly bargaining “representation” do not have the power to file meaningful grievances themselves, the brief argues, this is a blatant attempt to gut the Right to Work law and allow union bosses to force nonmembers to financially support unions.

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 upwards of $1,000 from him.

“The legislature’s inclusion of [Right to Work] provisions shows a specific intent to outlaw compulsory grievance fee schemes like those successfully challenged here,” the Foundation’s brief says.

Union Officials Already Maintain Full Control over Grievances – Often to Detriment of Workers

Union officials for decades have had the privilege under federal and state law to control every aspect of the grievance process in a workplace where they are in power. This already often gives them the latitude to toss out or slow-walk grievances they do not think are in the union’s interest.

In fact, in Michigan, two federal lawsuits are pending in which rank-and-file employees under the monopoly control of United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials accuse the union of mishandling grievances. The cases together involve nearly 100 Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) employees challenging UAW officials’ inexplicable mishandling or withdrawal of grievances workers had filed regarding pay cuts or illicit employee transfers.

Foundation staff attorneys have aided Michigan workers in defending their Right to Work freedoms in well over 100 cases since the Wolverine State’s Right to Work law was enacted in 2012.

“Having faced defeat time and time again in the state legislature, Michigan union bosses and their political cronies are now trying to use the courts to eliminate Right to Work and reinstall their forced-dues reign in the Wolverine State,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s worth pointing out, however, that the enormous power union officials enjoy under state law to impose their ‘representation’ on all employees in a workplace, union members or not, is the only thing that let them create the scheme which sparked this conflict in the first place.”

“While employees’ right to abstain from membership or dues payment to an unwanted union should always be protected, union officials shouldn’t be able to force their control on employees who don’t want and never asked for it,” Mix added.

Union bosses illegally demanded union dues, lectured worker and her priest about Catholic teachings and sent ‘remedial church readings’

Clarksville, TN (March 25, 2022) – Former Blanchfield Army Community Hospital employee Dorothy Frame has won a settlement against Laborers International Union (LIUNA) officials in a federal lawsuit charging them with illegal religious discrimination. Frame filed her case with free assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Frame’s November 2021 complaint said LIUNA officials illegally discriminated against her by forcing her, in violation of her Catholic beliefs, to fund the union’s activities through mandatory union dues payments. Frame voiced her religious objections to the union’s stances, but union officials repeatedly rejected and ridiculed her requests for a religious accommodation, according to her lawsuit.

Under the settlement, as a condition of dismissing the lawsuit against LIUNA, union officials must pay Frame $10,000 in damages. The settlement also requires LIUNA officials’ attorney to send an apology letter to Frame for the union’s inappropriate conduct.

“I knew in my heart and in my soul that I was right,” Frame said about the successful conclusion of her case. “This is one of the greatest things that I’ve ever done in my life. It was hard; it was so hard.”

LIUNA Officials Illegally Snubbed Worker’s Religious Accommodation Request

Frame first requested a religious accommodation in 2019, when she sent a letter informing LIUNA officials of the conflict between her religious beliefs and the requirement that she join or pay the union.

Tennessee has a Right to Work law ensuring that private sector workers in the state cannot be compelled to pay dues as a condition of employment. But Fort Campbell, the location of Blanchfield hospital where Frame worked, is a “federal enclave” not subject to state law. Frame’s former employer, J & J Worldwide Service, maintains a union monopoly contract with LIUNA union bosses that forces employees to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

Frame’s July 2019 letter also included a message from her parish priest supporting her request for a religious accommodation. Federal law prohibits unions from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, and requires unions to provide accommodations to workers who oppose dues payment on religious grounds.

Rather than fulfill their obligation under federal law to provide her such an accommodation, Frame’s complaint reported, LIUNA officials denigrated her beliefs.

Frame’s complaint recounted that union lawyers demanded she provide a “legitimate justification” for why her conflict with the union’s activity warranted a religious accommodation. A union lawyer also claimed in a letter, according to Frame’s complaint, that “Ms. Frame’s understanding of her faith was inferior to his own understanding of her faith.” He even closed the letter by “sending Ms. Frame – and her priest – remedial church readings.”

“It crushed me, it hurt me so deeply. Not just for them to say that to me, but to tell my priest that,” Frame said of the experience. “It crushed me, and it actually made me more determined.”

Frame subsequently filed a discrimination charge against LIUNA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2019. Even after EEOC proceedings and additional letters from Frame’s attorney demonstrating the conflict between the union’s activity and her faith, Frame’s complaint explains, union officials still refused to accommodate her beliefs and refused to return money they took from her paycheck after she requested an accommodation.

Ultimately the EEOC issued Frame a “right to sue” letter leading to her federal anti-discrimination lawsuit, filed by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

“Ms. Frame believes that abortion is a grave sin,” her lawsuit detailed. “She believes joining or financially supporting the Unions would make her complicit in that sin because she believes that the Unions support and promote abortion. Thus, she believes that any money the Unions collect from her makes her complicit in sin and violates her religious beliefs.”

Foundation President: Forced Dues Privileges Create ‘Breeding Ground’ For Discrimination

“Despite being targeted with years of bullying and discrimination by LIUNA officials, Ms. Frame refused to forsake her religious beliefs and stood firm for her rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “She has now prevailed decisively against LIUNA’s illegal attempt to force her to choose between remaining true to her beliefs and staying employed.”

“While the National Right to Work Foundation is proud to stand with principled workers like Ms. Frame, Big Labor’s government-granted privilege to force rank-and-file workers to support their activities creates a breeding ground for such malfeasance and anti-worker abuse,” Mix continued. “No American worker should have to pay tribute to a union they oppose just to keep their job, whether their objections are religious or otherwise.”

Petition for vote follows NLRB order to overturn majority vote by other Red Rock employees who rejected Culinary Union

Las Vegas, NV (March 21, 2022) – Slot machine technicians at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas are seeking a vote on whether to remove International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials from control at their workplace. Red Rock technician Jereme Barrios submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Barrios’ petition for a union decertification vote contains the signatures of a large majority of slot machine technicians at the casino, far more than the percentage NLRB rules require to trigger a vote. Barring any delays, the vote should be held in April at the casino.

Thanks to Foundation-backed changes to union election rules that the NLRB adopted in 2020, Barrios and his colleagues expect to vote promptly. Before the reforms, union bosses were often able to delay decertification elections for months or even years by filing “blocking charges,” sometimes repeatedly.

“Blocking charges” are often-unverified allegations of employer misbehavior that union officials regularly invent to stop workers from booting them from a facility. As a result of the Foundation-backed changes, in most circumstances union officials’ “blocking charges” cannot stop a vote from being promptly scheduled, and are generally dealt with after the ballots have been counted and the tally announced.

Other Red Rock Employees Fight for Freedom from Culinary Union

The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. The order came despite the fact that a majority of hospitality and foodservice employees voted to reject union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.

NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet asked a federal court to issue an order unilaterally imposing unionization despite Teske and her coworkers’ objections. US District Judge Gloria Navarro issued the order in July 2021. A legal brief filed for Teske by Foundation staff attorneys argues that the basis for overturning the workers’ vote – Culinary Union bosses’ claim that they have “union cards” from workers indicating majority support – is unreliable and disregards the clear will of workers as expressed in the secret ballot election.

Palms Casino Employee, also Seeking to Oust Unpopular Union, Battles Dubious NLRB Ruling

Barrios and his colleagues are seeking freedom from the IUOE union at the same time as Thomas Stallings and his fellow maintenance workers at Palms Casino in Las Vegas are attempting to get a vote whether to remove IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials from their workplace.

With Foundation legal aid Stallings filed last year an Emergency Request for Expedited Review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, in response to NLRB Region 28 Director Overstreet’s blocking of his request for a vote based on union “blocking charges.”

Stallings’ request argues that Overstreet is leaving him and his coworkers trapped under an unpopular union despite the new NLRB rules regarding “blocking charges,” and despite the fact the unions’ accusations against the employer relate to other unions besides those involved in his case, and to other bargaining units having nothing to do with the 19-person maintenance unit involved in his case.

“Las Vegas union officials likely believe they can violate workers’ free choice rights without any consequences, as it seems ‘the union house always wins’ at NLRB Region 28,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Barrios, Ms. Teske, and Mr. Stallings are standing up for themselves and their coworkers by opposing unpopular union bosses. Foundation attorneys will fight to make sure their voices are heard even though the deck may seem to be stacked against independent-minded workers.”

Public educators have right to rebuff union officials’ demands that they abandon students, also have right to stop all dues deductions

Minneapolis, MN (March 7, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special legal notice to teachers and other staff at Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools, whom officials of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers (MFT) union, St. Paul Federation of Educators (SPFE) union, and other unions have ordered to strike beginning March 8. Both MFT and SPFE are affiliates of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union.

The legal notice informs rank-and-file teachers and other school employees of the rights teacher union bosses won’t inform them of, including their right to refuse to abandon their students and to keep working to support their families despite the union-ordered strike. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.

“This situation raises serious concerns for Minneapolis and St. Paul public educators who believe there is much to lose from a union boss-ordered strike and do not want their students to fall behind,” the notice reads. “Employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be fully informed before they do so.”

The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/mft-strike-legal-notice/.

The notice outlines the process that Minneapolis and St. Paul educators should follow if they want to exercise their right to resign their union memberships and return to work during the strike while avoiding punishment by union bosses. The notice also links to sample union membership resignation letters.

The notice reminds educators of their First Amendment right, under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, to cut off all union dues payments. In Janus, the High Court recognized that public sector employees like public educators cannot be forced to pay any union dues or fees to get or keep a job, and that union officials can only deduct union dues or fees from public employees’ paychecks with their affirmative consent.

The Foundation scored a victory just last week for a Los Angeles-area public teacher who was the target of Janus rights violations by California Teachers Association (CTA) officials. Natalie Bahl, a teacher at Camino Nuevo Charter Academy, sent a letter to union and school officials exercising her Janus right to stop union deductions, only to find afterward that school administrators were still taking dues from her paycheck at the behest of CTA bosses. After Foundation staff attorneys sent a letter threatening litigation if the illegally-taken monies were not returned to Bahl, CTA officials backed down and refunded the ill-gotten money.

“Minneapolis and St. Paul educators should know they unequivocally have the right to reject union boss strike orders and continue working to make sure their pupils do not fall behind,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “The last two years showed some particularly aggressive politicking by top teacher union bosses across the country, especially AFT President Randi Weingarten, which resulted in long-running, heavy-handed restrictions on public education. With that in mind, public school employees are right to question whether this strike is really what is best for the Twin Cities’ kids, teachers, and community at large.”

“Rank-and-file educators should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid if they believe union officials may be violating their legal rights,” added Mix.