District Court Orders Connecticut State Police to Turn Over Evidence in Former Sergeant’s Retaliation Suit
Veteran officer was transferred out of prestigious position for asserting his workplace rights, choosing not to be a union member
Hartford, CT (May 27, 2022) – A federal judge has just ordered Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner James Rovella to turn over evidence in a federal retaliation lawsuit filed in 2016 by Joseph Mercer, a former Connecticut State Trooper.
Mercer, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, charged Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) and state officials with knocking him out of a prestigious command position because he exercised his First Amendment rights to refrain from union membership and oppose the union’s political activity.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Rovella to turn over certain documents relevant to Mercer’s claims. According to the orders, these documents could be relevant to determining whether union and state police officials treated Mercer unfairly because he dissociated from CSPU.
Union Officials Fought to Remove Union Opponent from Prestigious Position He Was Qualified For
Mercer, a former state trooper, says he was transferred from his command position with the Emergency Services Unit because he resigned from the union and refrained from supporting its political agenda.
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 Andrew 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 also filed a second grievance, alleging Mercer had mismanaged a shooting incident involving an armed suspect barricaded in a hotel. State police officials never expressed dissatisfaction with how Mercer handled the situation.
In October 2015, the then-Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services 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 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’s lawsuit seeks his reinstatement as Operations Sergeant in the Emergency Services Division and compensatory damages for the decrease in his overtime pay opportunities. In August 2018, the District Court denied motions to dismiss the case filed by CSPU and state officials, allowing the case to proceed.
Evidence Revealing Unfair Treatment of State Trooper Must Be Handed Over
The court orders compelling discovery state that records about Emergency Services Unit team members in similar “deadly force” situations to Mercer’s “are relevant for the purpose of determining a central issue in the case: whether Plaintiff was treated differently by his employer than others in similar situations.” The orders also say that information concerning whether or not a “selection process” was used to fill the Operations Sergeant position clearly “pertain to the issue of whether Plaintiff was treated differently with respect to his appointment as Operations Supervisor.”
“By compelling discovery in this case, the District Court brings Sergeant Mercer one step closer to defeating openly vindictive and unconstitutional behavior by CSPU union officials and their allies in state government. They wreaked havoc on Mercer’s career simply because he disagreed with the union’s politics,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’ve been proud to fight alongside Sergeant Mercer the past few years and will continue to do so until his rights and career are restored.”
Orange County Lifeguards Push for Rehearing of First Amendment Challenge to Union Scheme Trapping Them in Union Membership
Restrictions will trap lifeguards in union membership and full dues payments for almost four years after they opted out of union
Orange County, CA (May 16, 2022) – California lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 22 colleagues are pressing for a rehearing of their federal civil rights lawsuit before an en banc panel of judges of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Savas and the others are suing the State of California and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) union for violating their and their coworkers’ First Amendment right to abstain from forced union membership and compelled financial support.
Savas and his colleagues are asserting their rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court declared that no public sector worker can be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments.
A so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement enforced by CSLEA union bosses and the State of California is forcing the lifeguards to both remain union members and supply full dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations on or around September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they have to remain full members until 2023. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas’ attorneys criticize the Ninth Circuit panel’s giving a pass to “maintenance of membership” requirements as contradicting Janus, and note that forcing dissenting employees to pay full union dues was unconstitutional even under Abood, the 1977 Supreme Court decision which Janus overruled. The lifeguards are receiving free legal representation from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation, along with Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
“The Supreme Court recognized decades prior to Janus, in Abood, that it violates the First Amendment for government employers and unions to require dissenting employees pay full union dues…If maintenance of membership requirements could not survive constitutional scrutiny under Abood,” Savas’ attorneys argue, the requirements are definitely foreclosed by the higher level of First Amendment protection applied in Janus.
Savas’ en banc request also refutes the Ninth Circuit panel’s claim that the lifeguards somehow “contractually consented to the maintenance of membership requirement.” Savas’ attorneys point out that the dues deduction authorization form that the lifeguards signed only vaguely alluded to the presence of the “maintenance of membership” requirement in the union contract with their state employer, and never explicitly informed the lifeguards what that requirement was.
On that same point, Savas’ attorneys point out that “the panel’s contract-law analysis is wrongheaded because Janus requires a constitutional-waiver analysis.” Janus requires that employees voluntarily waive their First Amendment right not to make dues payments before such payments are extracted. Savas’ attorneys state “[t]here is no evidence the Lifeguards knew of their First Amendment rights under Janus or intelligently chose to waive those rights.” Indeed, many of the lifeguards could not have known about those rights because they signed the dues deduction authorization forms before the Supreme Court decided Janus.
“Even if such evidence existed, any purported waiver would be unenforceable…because a four-year prohibition on employees’ exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus is unconscionable,” Savas’ attorneys continue.
Ninth Circuit Panel Ruling Completely Inconsistent with Janus, Rehearing Required
“So-called ‘maintenance of membership’ requirements have been unconstitutional for decades, and it’s outrageous that courts have looked the other way and allowed CSLEA union bosses to infringe Savas’ and his fellow lifeguards’ First Amendment rights under the guise of such restrictions for so long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “A rehearing of Savas’ case is necessary so the plain meaning of Janus can be applied. Otherwise the Ninth Circuit will not only have ignored Janus, but turned back the clock over half a century on workers’ right to refrain from union membership.”
Federal Judge Rejects Attempt by TWU Union and Southwest to Thwart Flight Attendant’s Religious Discrimination Suit
Flight attendant’s case will go to trial at District Court in Dallas
Dallas, TX (May 10, 2022) – A federal judge has ruled that Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter’s federal lawsuit, in which she is suing Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 officials and Southwest for illegally firing her over her religious opposition to abortion, will continue at the US District Court in Dallas. Carter is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
District Court Judge Brantley Starr ruled late last week denying the TWU union’s and Southwest Airlines’ motions for summary judgment, which would have given the union and airline an early victory in the case. Starr affirmed in the decision that the case must move to trial because “genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment” on all claims.
Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities
As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote social causes that violate her conscience and religious beliefs.
Carter resigned from union membership but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it does protect the rights of employees to remain nonmembers of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, the union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” which was sponsored by political groups she opposed, including Planned Parenthood. Carter’s lawsuit alleges that Southwest knew of the TWU Local 556 activities and participation in the Women’s March and helped accommodate TWU Local 556 members wishing to attend the March by allowing them to give their work shifts to other employees not attending that protest.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and a National Right to Work law after union officials sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After sending Stone that email, Carter was notified by Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screenshots of her pro-life posts and messages and questioned why she made them.
Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities. Carter said that, by participating in the Women’s March, President Stone and TWU Local 556 members purported to be representing all Southwest flight attendants. Southwest authorities told Carter that President Stone claimed to be harassed by Carter’s messages. A week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.
In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights, alleging she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees.
Federal Judge: Flight Attendant’s Claims Against Southwest and Union Should Go to Trial
Notably, the District Court’s decision tosses arguments made by Southwest’s lawyers that Carter lacks a “private right of action” to enforce her fights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and arguments that her case concerned only a “minor” dispute over interpretation of the union contract that is outside the purview of the District Court.
The District Court’s ruling instead recognizes that the RLA’s explicit protection for employees’ free association rights means that Carter, who was fired for opposing the union based on its politics, “does have a private right of action” under the RLA.
The District Court re-affirmed its prior ruling that classifying the suit as a “minor dispute” is inappropriate, because “Carter had plausibly alleged that she engaged in protected speech and activity” and those claims “do not rest on and require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.”.
“[H]aving determined that Carter has a private right of action under [the RLA] and that this case concerns a major dispute,” the court ruled that a genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment on this claim.
The decision also rejects an argument by Southwest and the union that the District Court is bound by an arbitrator’s findings. Such “issue preclusion” is inappropriate in this case because, while arbitrators are competent to resolve factual questions, they are “not competent to resolve the ultimate legal questions of a case,” the decision says.
“This decision is an important step towards long overdue justice for Charlene. The ruling rejects several attempts by Southwest and union officials to deny Ms. Carter’s right to bring this case in federal court and enforce her RLA-protected speech and association rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Further, the decision acknowledges that, at its core, this case is about an individual worker’s right to object to how forced union dues and fees are spent by union officials to take positions that are completely contrary to the beliefs of many workers forced under the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
“The Foundation is proud to stand with Charlene Carter and will continue fighting for her rights for as long as is necessary,” Mix added.
Northern PA Metal Worker Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Union PAC Money from Wages
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.
At Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas Police Officer Defends First Amendment Right to Stop Funding Unwanted Union
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.
Special Alert: Foundation Offers Free Legal Aid to Amy’s Kitchen Employees Targeted by Teamsters Union Bosses
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.
Chicago-area Firefighters Kick Out Unwanted SEIU Officials
SEIU officials back down, depart Carpentersville facility after worker exposed false claims SEIU made to disenfranchise firefighters opposed to union
Chicago, IL (April 7, 2022) – With free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Nick Salzmann and his fellow Village of Carpentersville firefighters have forced unwanted Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 officials out of their workplace.
Salzmann filed a petition in September 2021 backed by the vast majority of his coworkers seeking a vote whether to remove the SEIU union. After the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB) executive director blocked the vote based on specious accusations union officials made of Village of Carpentersville officials, Salzmann filed an appeal that revealed union officials had actually staged the scenario in which the alleged misbehavior arose.
Rather than respond to that appeal, in March, SEIU union officials filed paperwork relinquishing power over Salzmann and his coworkers.
Carpentersville Firefighter’s Appeal Revealed Plot by SEIU Union Bosses to Maintain Control
The ILRB is the Illinois state agency responsible for adjudicating workplace disputes among union officials, Illinois government agencies, and Illinois public employees. SEIU union officials’ so-called “blocking charges,” which they filed against Village of Carpentersville officials in an attempt to delay Salzmann and his coworkers’ requested election, claimed that Carpentersville officials were not following proper bargaining procedures.
However, Salzmann’s appeal showed that in reality it was union officials who disrupted the bargaining process. His appeal maintained that “the union walked away from the bargaining table twice when the Employer could not guarantee that the decertification process would not proceed.”
SEIU bosses’ departures from the bargaining table are a sign union officials were trying to coerce Carpentersville officials into assisting the union in quashing the employee-led decertification effort.
As further evidence of the scheme, Salzmann’s appeal stated that “the Union amended the charges, changing from an ‘impacts and effect’ charge to a ‘failure to bargain’ charge,” suggesting that union lawyers couldn’t demonstrate any connection between Salzmann and his coworkers’ desire to eliminate the union and anything Carpentersville officials did, and had to rely on the (union-caused) bargaining stoppages as their sole allegation against Carpentersville officials.
According to the appeal, approximately 80% of the firefighters favored decertifying the union.
Finally, Salzmann’s appeal contended that the SEIU bosses’ actions disturbed the “laboratory conditions” that should be present for any decertification election. It stated that the “Union’s efforts to compel [the firefighters] to abandon their claim, including telling them they had proceeded improperly in their effort,” along with the union bosses’ willful departures from the bargaining table “caused the factual scenario” that led to the union’s charge.
Foundation President: ILRB Rules Allowed Election Interference by Union Officials
“We’re pleased Nick Salzmann and his coworkers were finally able to oust unpopular SEIU officials from their facility,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, it’s astonishing that ILRB officials initially blocked Salzmann’s request for a vote to remove the union based on a patently false narrative peddled by SEIU union bosses.”
“Salzmann and his coworkers’ travail is one more reason why government union bosses should not have the power to force workers under their so-called ‘representation’ at all,” Mix added. “No public employee should be ever be required to associate with a private organization like a union just to work for their own government.”
CEA Union Officials Back Down after Plainville Community School District Teacher Exercises Right to Cut Off Dues
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.
Court Rejects Union Attempt to Dismiss Cuyahoga County Officer’s First Amendment Challenge to Police Union Dues Deductions
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.
