Oscar Cruz Sosa moves to intervene in union case charging employer with refusing to help them surveil and harass him

Washington, DC (April 8, 2021) – Delaware Mountaire Farms poultry worker Oscar Cruz Sosa, who is spearheading a worker effort to vote United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union bosses out of the Mountaire Farms plant in Selbyville, DE, is now seeking to intervene in UFCW union officials’ case against Mountaire Farms management for refusing to hand over to them his private employee information.

Cruz Sosa filed a Motion to Intervene at Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Baltimore today with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting Cruz Sosa and his coworkers in defending their right to oust UFCW officials from their workplace.

The new motion comes after Cruz Sosa himself filed federal charges last month against UFCW brass for illegally retaliating against him and attempting unlawful surveillance of his activities, by demanding from Mountaire Farms records of his activities in and around the plant.

Cruz Sosa’s charge incorporated information from a complaint NLRB Region 5 issued in the UFCW bosses’ case against the employer, which revealed that Mountaire Farms officials had rebuffed intrusive union requests for “[c]opies of the daily hours of work and the time and attendance records for employee Oscar Cruz Sosa between August 1, 2019 and March 15, 2020,” and “the daily admission log…for all access points to the Selbyville plant identifying by name” anyone who has accessed the plant since March 2020.

As Mr. Cruz Sosa’s filing points out, many “Board and federal court cases support [his] intervention to protect his rights to campaign for decertification without being spied upon.”

Meanwhile, Cruz Sosa and his coworkers are still waiting for the NLRB in Washington to rule in their decertification election case. In that case, the workers are defending their already-cast ballots from UFCW lawyers’ attempts to have those ballots destroyed. UFCW lawyers claim that a non-statutory NLRB policy called the “contract bar” should have blocked Cruz Sosa’s petition, even though it was signed by hundreds of his colleagues requesting the election. The non-statutory “contract bar” policy entrenches unions for up to three years after management and union officials broker a contract.

NLRB Region 5 ruled that the decertification vote should proceed because of an invalid forced dues clause in the contract, and UFCW lawyers quickly demanded review of that ruling by the full NLRB. The NLRB agreed to review the case, but also agreed with Foundation staff attorneys’ arguments that the entire “contract bar” policy should be re-evaluated, as it arbitrarily blocks workers’ right to remove unpopular union bosses for as long as three years.

Cruz Sosa and his coworkers are also fighting in another unfair labor practice case to get back dues collected under the illegal forced dues clause that blocked the contract bar and threw a wrench in UFCW bosses’ initial attempt to stop the vote. Just weeks ago, Cruz Sosa objected to a settlement proffered in that case by NLRB Region 5. According to his objections, that proposal “[sought] to ferret out for relief what is likely to be a minuscule handful of employees” even though all of his coworkers were harmed by the clause, which unlawfully compelled employees to pay dues immediately upon hiring or be fired. Federal law mandates a 30-day grace period on such demands. Cruz Sosa’s charge demands unit-wide dues refunds for all employees.

“UFCW union bosses’ campaign to thwart Mountaire Farms employees’ right to vote them out of their workplace is pernicious and far-reaching, and even includes the current attempt to twist the employer’s arm for personal information so they can unlawfully surveil an employee in retaliation for assisting his coworkers in exercising their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Cruz Sosa’s attempt to intervene in this case should serve as a reminder of his strong motivation to fight back, and highlights the lengths to which union officials will go to maintain their one-size-fits-all ‘representation’ against the will of the very workers they claim to represent.”

Employee asserted right under Beck Supreme Court decision to opt-out of paying for union politics

Hawaii (April 6, 2021) – By filing federal charges against the UNITE HERE Local 5 union, Hawaii Kaiser Permanente employee Nina Chiu has successfully defended her rights under the CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. She received free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing her charges.

Beck was won by Foundation staff attorneys in 1988. The Court held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) mandates that union officials cannot force private sector workers who decline formal union membership to pay union fees as a condition of keeping a job for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions. This includes the union’s political expenditures. The Beck precedent also requires union bosses to provide nonmember employees with an independent audit of the union’s breakdown of expenditures, their process for determining the reduced union fee amount, and information on how to challenge the union’s determination.

Chiu, though she is not a union member, can still be forced to pay this reduced amount of union fees as a condition of employment because Hawaii lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees. Under Right to Work, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.

According to Chiu’s charge against the UNITE HERE Local 5 union, even after she submitted two letters exercising her Beck rights, she had “not received a financial breakdown and [was] still being charged the equivalent of full dues.” Consequently, her charge argued, the UNITE HERE Local 5 union breached Chiu’s rights under the NLRA, which guarantees all workers the right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.

NLRB documents now show that UNITE HERE officials have backed down and reduced Chiu’s dues payments “consistent with Union’s determined dues chargeable rates” and mailed her “the Union’s Auditor’s Report, Union’s Statement of Expenses, and procedure for challenging the Union’s dues chargeability determination.”

Chiu’s victory comes as Foundation staff attorneys assist many other workers subjected to Beck rights violations by union officials. Most recently, Foundation attorneys aided Queens, NY-based UPS employee Kamil Fraczek in filing a federal charge against Teamsters Local 804 officials, who had unlawfully demanded that he become a union member and authorize full dues deductions from his paycheck or be fired.

“While we are pleased that Ms. Chiu has successfully defended her rights under Beck to abstain from paying for union politics, employees should not have to file federal charges to get union bosses to respect their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That Ms. Chiu and other employees across the islands can be forced to pay anything to union bosses they have actively chosen to dissociate from again demonstrates why Aloha State legislators need to pass a Right to Work law, so union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.”

Burdensome “strawman” process made workers create fake union in order to have National Mediation Board schedule vote to remove incumbent union

Washington, DC (April 2, 2021) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this week issued a decision rejecting a lawsuit by AFL-CIO union lawyers to overturn a National Mediation Board (NMB) rule change, which allows workers in the airline and railroad industries to petition directly for elections to remove unwanted union “representation.” The rule, which was finalized by the NMB in 2019, replaced a confusing and needlessly complex NMB process in which workers had to create and solicit support for a fake “straw man” union just to vote out the incumbent union officials.

In March 2020, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a legal brief on behalf of Allegiant Airlines flight attendant Steven Stoecker defending the rule change from the AFL-CIO’s lawsuit. The brief was also filed for the Foundation itself, which has provided free legal representation to numerous workers under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which the NMB is charged with enforcing.

Stoecker, whose employment is governed by the RLA, attempted from 2014 to 2016 to remove the Transport Workers Union (TWU) from its monopoly bargaining status in his workplace, but those attempts ultimately failed when he lost his “straw man” election.

“The National Mediation Board’s Final Rule simplifies the union selection or rejection process under the Railway Labor Act and erases nonstatutory barriers that hinder employees’ efforts to freely choose or reject a representative,” read Stoecker’s brief. “In response, the Plaintiffs, a group of labor unions that benefit from the complexities of the straw man decertification process, challenge the Final Rule and the Board’s statutory authority to establish it.”

Before the NMB issued the final rule in 2019, workers like Stoecker had to sign authorization cards designating an employee to be the “strawman” even though that employee had no intention of representing the unit. In the election that followed, the ballot options included the name of the union workers wished to decertify, the name of the straw man applicant, e.g., “John Smith,” the option for a write-in candidate and, confusingly, the option for “no union.”

Under the old guidelines, workers who voted for either the straw man or “no union” in hopes to oust union officials would unknowingly be splitting the vote opposed to unionization, as votes counted for these options were not tallied together but separately. The NMB’s new rule allows workers to vote out union representatives directly, without the cumbersome procedural hurdles.

The District Court’s ruling rejects a union argument that the RLA forbids workers from directly petitioning for a decertification vote, pointing out that the RLA “does not require employees or their representative to pretend to seek certification in order to vindicate their statutorily protected right of complete independence in the workplace,” and also that the Supreme Court “held long ago that workers covered by the Act have ‘the right to determine…whether they shall have’” a union in the workplace at all.

“The District Court was correct in striking down this union boss lawsuit, which blatantly sought to reimpose a convoluted process by which union chiefs could remain in power in a workplace even when there was clear evidence a majority of workers wanted them gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, more needs to be done to ensure the freedom of America’s railroad and airline workers.”

“For example, currently the RLA prevents workers from being protected by state Right to Work laws, which ensure union financial support is strictly voluntary,” added Mix. “That’s why, ultimately, a National Right to Work law is needed to protect railway and airline employees from being forced to pay a union boss or else be fired.”

Educators submitted amicus brief in similar case before SCOTUS challenging “escape period” which curtails right to refrain from dues

Chicago, IL (March 25, 2021) – Two Chicago Public Schools (CPS) educators are appealing to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals their class-action civil rights lawsuit charging the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) with illegal dues seizures.

The suit challenges a union policy that blocks teachers from exercising their First Amendment right to stop payments to the union outside of the month of August.

The lawsuit seeks refunds of all dues seized from dissenting teachers by the Chicago Board of Education under the policy. The Board enforces the arrangement at the behest of the CTU union and is also named as a defendant.

The educators, Jones College Prep Tech Coordinator Joanne Troesch and Newberry Math and Science Academy second-grade teacher Ifeoma Nkemdi, are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The lawsuit contends that the dues scheme perpetrated by CTU officials violates the First Amendment protections laid out in the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The appeal comes shortly after Troesch, Nkemdi, and other public employees submitted an amicus brief in Belgau v. Inslee, which is currently pending on a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. That class-action suit involves a group of Washington State employees, led by Melissa Belgau, who are fighting similar policies imposed by Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials and the State of Washington.

In Janus, which was argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, the High Court struck down mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment rights of government employees. The Court ruled that taking any dues without a government worker’s affirmative consent violates the First Amendment, and further made it clear that these rights cannot be restricted absent a clear and knowing waiver. Messenger is on Troesch and Nkemdi’s legal team.

Troesch and Nkemdi’s lawsuit explains that they “did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support” the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019. The pair independently discovered their First Amendment Janus rights while they were researching how to exercise their right to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered in October 2019, the lawsuit notes. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.

Both educators received no response until November of that year, when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the teachers’ paychecks “until September 1, 2020.” CTU bosses relied on the fact that Troesch and Nkemdi had not submitted their letters within a union boss-created “escape period,” which limits when teachers can exercise their First Amendment right to end dues deductions.

Troesch and Nkemdi contend that CTU officials’ attempt to curb employees’ right to stop dues deductions with an “escape period” and the Board’s continued dues seizures both violate the First Amendment. Their lawsuit seeks to make the CTU union and the Board of Education stop enforcing the “escape period,” and notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end the deduction of union dues at any time and “retroactively exercise that right.”

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Troesch and Nkemdi’s lawsuit on February 25, 2021. The court ruled that CTU officials didn’t violate Janus by forbidding the two educators from exercising their First Amendment right to cut off union dues except for one month a year. This prompted Foundation attorneys to appeal the case to the Seventh Circuit for the educators.

Foundation staff attorneys in December 2020 filed a similar lawsuit for University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System employee Johnathan Shepard, who is challenging an “escape period” foisted on him and his coworkers by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 bosses. Across the country, Foundation staff attorneys represent public servants in at least 14 cases where union officials have tried to confine their First Amendment Janus rights to an “escape period.”

“Each day that the courts refuse to uphold the clear logic of Janus is another day that union bosses are allowed to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting public servants in clear violation of their First Amendment rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation is proud to stand with Ms. Troesch and Ms. Nkemdi, and will continue to defend all educators who simply want to serve their students and community without being forced to subsidize union activities.”

Settlement denies relief to most employees, another example of decreased scrutiny on union bosses’ violations since Biden installed NLRB Acting GC Peter Ohr

Washington, DC (March 24, 2021) – Selbyville, DE-based Mountaire Farms employee Oscar Cruz Sosa has objected to a settlement proposed by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5 officials in his case charging United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union bosses with imposing an illegal dues provision on him and his coworkers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Cruz Sosa’s objections argue that the settlement proffered by NLRB Region 5 “provides inadequate remedies to the unit employees,” on all of whom UFCW officials enforced a contract clause which unlawfully requires all workers to pay dues immediately upon hiring or be fired.

Federal law stipulates that new hires be given 30 days before any mandatory dues requirements are imposed on them. Because Delaware lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, Cruz Sosa and his colleagues can be required to pay some reduced union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs after the 30-day period.

NLRB Region 5 proposed the settlement while NLRB Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr has directly or indirectly sought to curtail several other Foundation cases for independent-minded workers seeking to free themselves from illegal forced dues or other coercive union boss practices. Many of Ohr’s actions attempt to reverse work that had been done by his predecessor, Senate-confirmed General Counsel Peter Robb, to defend workers’ individual rights.

Just last week, Foundation attorneys opposed Ohr’s move to return West Virginia Kroger employee Shelby Krocker’s case, which is fully briefed before the NLRB in D.C., to NLRB Region 6 in Pittsburgh, where an insufficient settlement would be foisted on her and her coworkers. Krocker is challenging dues checkoff cards distributed by UFCW bosses which falsely claim that they “MUST BE SIGNED,” violating federal law’s requirement that authorizations of direct dues deductions from workers’ paychecks must be strictly voluntary. Robb had sustained Krocker’s charges after NLRB Region 6 initially dismissed them.

In the Mountaire Farms situation, Ohr in February withdrew a Robb-filed brief defending Cruz Sosa and his coworkers’ right to vote UFCW Local 27 bosses out of their workplace. UFCW lawyers claim that a non-statutory NLRB policy called the “contract bar” should have blocked Cruz Sosa’s otherwise valid petition signed by his colleagues requesting a “decertification election.” The “contract bar” entrenches unions for up to three years after management and union officials broker a contract.

Although NLRB Region 5 ruled that the vote should proceed because of the contract’s invalid forced dues clause, UFCW lawyers demanded review by the full NLRB, and now seek to have the NLRB destroy the ballots workers have already cast in the election. The NLRB decided to review the case, but announced that the entire “contract bar” policy would be brought under scrutiny. This case is still pending before the full NLRB.

Cruz Sosa’s current filing contends that NLRB Region 5’s proposed settlement on the issue of the illegal dues clause “seeks to ferret out for relief what is likely to be a minuscule handful of employees” instead of giving all employees under UFCW Local 27’s control at Mountaire “the right to claim their dues money back to the start of” the contract and ensuring the clause is never enforced again. This is requested because, based on NLRB Region 5’s own ruling, the forced dues clause is “facially invalid” and “all employees have been adversely impacted” by it.

Cruz Sosa’s attorneys also argue that the settlement, which would be conditional on the NLRB’s finding in the pending decertification case that the UFCW’s forced dues clause is invalid, forecloses the possibility of the relief requested for all employees even if the Board affirms the Region’s ruling that the clause is invalid. “This one-way ratchet is patently unfair to the 800 employees in this unit and completely one-sided,” Foundation attorneys assert.

This dispute highlights the NLRB General Counsel’s Office and Regional Directors’ shift to reinforcing the coercive privileges of union bosses since President Biden installed Peter Ohr as NLRB Acting General Counsel. Ohr was put in after Biden took the unprecedented and legally dubious step of firing Robb, Ohr’s predecessor, nearly eleven months before the end of his Senate-confirmed term.

“This is an obvious attempt by so-called ‘Acting’ NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr to ensure President Biden’s union boss cronies don’t have to face the music when they violate workers’ individual rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Cruz Sosa and his coworkers were all harmed by this plainly unlawful dues clause, and a proper remedy must include relief for all of them.”

“NLRB Region 5’s hasty proposed settlement – deliberately crafted before the full NLRB has ruled on UFCW bosses’ illegal conduct in Cruz Sosa’s workplace, must be rejected,” Mix added.

Worker’s attorneys argue Biden-installed Peter Ohr has no authority to force inadequate settlement in blatant attempt to shield union from NLRB ruling

Washington, DC (March 17, 2021) – West Virginia-based Kroger employee Shelby Krocker has filed an opposition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr’s attempt to shut down her case, which charges the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 union with maintaining illegal dues checkoffs and taking dues money pursuant to those checkoffs.

The opposition was filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. It was submitted in response to Ohr’s joint motion with the union to remand the case to NLRB Region 6 in Pittsburgh to impose a settlement designed to shield the union from being forced to provide a full remedy.

Foundation attorneys argue that Ohr’s maneuver is forbidden by NLRB rules and that Ohr is attempting to undermine the Board’s authority. They also argue that Ohr lacks authority because President Biden installed Ohr after firing his predecessor, Peter Robb, without any legal basis.

Krocker initially charged the union with illegally demanding employees sign dues checkoff authorization forms for the deduction of union dues from employee paychecks. The checkoff form union officials used blatantly misleads workers about their rights by prominently stating it “MUST BE SIGNED” in large print.

Krocker’s charge also maintains that union officials unlawfully rebuffed her request to cut off union dues. Because West Virginia has Right to Work protections for its workers, Krocker can’t be legally forced to fund union boss activities as a condition of keeping her job.

NLRB Region 6 initially dismissed Krocker’s charge, but Foundation attorneys successfully appealed this dismissal to former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who sustained the charge and ordered NLRB Region 6 to issue a complaint prosecuting UFCW Local 400 for the violations. Robb found that UFCW Local 400 officials had violated the law in even more ways than Krocker originally asserted, including failing to tell employees that they could end dues deductions at the expiration of a contract.

After an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) declined to rule that UFCW Local 400 officials violated the law with their “MUST BE SIGNED” demands and other unlawful provisions, Krocker’s Foundation staff attorneys appealed the case to the NLRB. Her appeal was supported by NLRB General Counsel Robb and has been fully briefed before the Board since September.

Krocker’s opposition contends that Ohr’s latest motion and the inadequate settlement are “bare political attempts to strip the Board of its ability to hear the important issues raised in this case,” and that “the proposed agreement does not fully remedy the unfair labor practices alleged in the Complaint and as shown by the stipulated factual record.” Foundation staff attorneys also point out that it is too late for Ohr and UFCW union officials to seek an informal settlement because the case is already before the NLRB.

More broadly, Foundation attorneys argue for Krocker that Ohr himself lacks authority to file motions in this case because President Biden ousted Peter Robb when he still had several months left on his term as NLRB General Counsel. Since the establishment of the office of NLRB General Counsel in 1947, no sitting General Counsel has ever been terminated by a president before the end of their Senate-confirmed four-year term, even when the White House changed hands. For example, Obama’s pick for General Counsel, former union lawyer Richard Griffin, remained the General Counsel for most of Trump’s first year (until his term expired on 10/31/17).

Allowing Ohr to exercise authority in this case, Foundation attorneys argue, “will do irreparable damage to the Board’s status as an independent quasi-judicial agency responsible for the neutral and even-handed resolution of unfair labor practice and representation cases.”

“Almost every day, so-called ‘Acting’ NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr demonstrates he has no problem with turning the NLRB into the Biden Administration’s tool for stifling the rights of independent-minded workers who dare to stand up to Biden’s union boss allies,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Ms. Krocker’s case is one of a growing number in which Foundation-backed workers whose rights were violated by union bosses are challenging Ohr’s authority.”

New brief contends Biden-appointed Acting NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr lacks authority to kill case already under consideration by full Board

Washington, DC (March 4, 2021) – Corpus Christi, TX-based nurse Marissa Zamora has just filed an opposition brief defending her case charging National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union bosses in her workplace with concealing a “neutrality agreement” struck in secret between union officials and HCA Holdings management that covers her hospital. The brief was filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Zamora’s case has progressed to the full NLRB in Washington, DC, after an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed a complaint that then-NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb had issued prosecuting the NNOC for hiding the agreement. Though Zamora and Robb had both filed exceptions urging the full Board to reverse the ALJ’s decision, NLRB Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr filed a motion on February 23, 2021, seeking unilaterally to send the complaint back to the NLRB Fort Worth regional office to be dismissed.

Zamora’s brief challenges Ohr’s attempt to kill the case on the grounds that it is already before the full Board, and she “is a full party with a right to have her pending exceptions decided by the Board.” Letting Ohr shut her out at this stage would “infringe on the Board’s exclusive power to adjudicate violations of” federal labor law, the brief asserts.

Further, the brief contends that Ohr lacks the legal authority to even ask the NLRB to end the case because Ohr’s predecessor, Robb, was unlawfully removed by President Biden almost a full year before his term was scheduled to end. “The General Counsel of the Board does not serve at the pleasure of the President,” the brief argues, also asserting that allowing “the President to fire the General Counsel at will would do irreparable damage to the NLRB’s function as an independent agency.”

Robb’s firing was unprecedented. Since the office of NLRB General Counsel was established in 1947, no sitting General Counsel of the NLRB has ever been fired by a president before the end of their Senate-confirmed four-year term, even when the White House changed hands. For example, Obama’s pick for General Counsel, former union lawyer Richard Griffin, remained the General Counsel for most of the first year after Trump’s election (until his term expired on 10/31/17).

“Neutrality agreements” are deals between union officials and employers, usually without the knowledge of employees in a workplace. They frequently contain provisions that require employers to silence opposition to unionization, hand over workers’ personal information for coercive “card check” drives that bypass the protections of a secret ballot election, provide union organizers with preferential access to the workplace, and even ensure employers will oppose later efforts to decertify, or remove, the union.

In Zamora’s case, she began circulating fliers and other materials in June 2018 to educate her coworkers on how they could obtain a vote to decertify the union. A brief supporting her exceptions recounts that union agents “repeatedly ripp[ed] down her fliers” and that HCA officials referenced a secret agreement with the union when they denied “her access to post material on protected bulletin boards, where her material would be shielded from vandalism.”

Zamora subsequently asked both NNOC and HCA officials to show her any “neutrality agreement” that might have triggered those efforts to block her and her coworkers’ rights. All her requests were denied, despite statements by HCA agents to her that indicated a “neutrality agreement” existed.

“By moving to have Ms. Zamora’s case tossed out, so-called ‘Acting General Counsel’ Peter Ohr is laying bare President Biden’s purely ideological motive behind removing Peter Robb: to allow his union boss cronies to escape legal scrutiny when they violate the rights of workers who refuse to toe the union line,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. Ohr has acted to squelch several cases of nationwide import brought by Foundation staff attorneys for workers.

“The fact is, even if Ohr were not installed in this position in utter defiance of law and precedent, this issue is already before the full Board whose members would be fully justified in ruling on the case purely on the exceptions Ms. Zamora filed to the ALJ’s decision,” Mix added.

Regional NLRB official asked worker to amend the charge against SEIU following successful appeal, now dismisses specifically-requested charges

Washington, DC (February 23, 2021) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Seattle building services employee Roger White is appealing the dismissal of his case charging Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1199NW officials with maintaining deceptive dues practices and illegally siphoning money from his paycheck.

White’s appeal follows the dismissal of his case by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Seattle Regional Office, which was on track to issue a complaint against union officials as instructed by former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb. The abrupt reversal on the case comes after President Biden’s unprecedented and legally groundless removal of Robb ten months before his term was supposed to end, and the President’s subsequent installation of union apologist Peter S. Ohr as NLRB “Acting General Counsel.”

Since his January installation, Ohr has ordered NLRB regional officials to cease prosecuting unions in several Foundation cases where workers accused union officials of illegal dues practices, or of using underhanded tactics to install themselves in workplaces without workers’ consent. In White’s case, Seattle NLRB officials have now dismissed accusations they had specifically asked White to include in amendments to his original charge, based on his successful first appeal in November 2020.

White charged SEIU bosses in April 2020 of seizing dues from his paycheck illegally after he twice attempted to exercise his right to end union membership and as a nonmember pay only the portion of dues directly related to bargaining. He also argued that his second request to end membership and pay reduced dues should have actually stopped dues deductions completely, because at the time there was a strike going on and there was no contract in effect between Swedish Medical Center (his employer) and SEIU 1199NW.

Because Washington State has not enacted Right to Work protections for its employees, White and his coworkers can be forced to pay a fee to the union as a condition of employment when a contract so requiring is in effect. However, the fee is limited by the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to only the portion of union dues that is directly germane to the union’s bargaining functions, which excludes expenditures on political and lobbying activities.

Union officials must also follow certain Beck procedures before collecting such fees, such as providing workers an independent audit of the union’s expenses. While White’s case was being litigated, General Counsel Robb issued a memo ordering NLRB regional officials to prosecute unions whose officials failed to follow Beck procedures, but that memo and others protecting workers’ rights were rescinded by Ohr on February 1, 2021.

The NLRB Regional Director in Seattle initially threw out White’s charges, ruling that SEIU officials were not obliged to inform White that he was not required to pay union fees during a contract hiatus. Foundation attorneys appealed that decision to then-NLRB General Counsel Robb, arguing that the SEIU owed White a “duty of truth and honesty,” and decrying the fact that the SEIU was able to “‘hide the ball’ and continue collecting dues” during the contract hiatus despite White’s clear “notice that he want[ed] to disassociate” from the union as much as possible.

In response to the appeal, Robb agreed with the Foundation staff attorneys’ arguments on November 6, 2020, concluding union officials violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by keeping White in the dark about his rights during the contract hiatus. The General Counsel further found that the union had maintained a “confusing and ambiguous Membership Application, Voluntary Check-Off Authorization and Payroll Deduction document.”

These checkoff documents, which employees are pushed to sign to allow dues deductions, did not provide enough information to enable workers to make an informed decision on whether to opt-out of membership and full dues, violating the principles of Beck. Robb also found that the SEIU’s dues checkoff authorization form “may be interpreted to preclude employees from revoking their authorization upon expiration of the contract.”

Robb ordered NLRB Region 19 in Seattle to issue a complaint against SEIU officials for the violations, and the Regional Director asked Mr. White twice to amend his charge to cover everything that Robb had mentioned when he sustained White’s first appeal. However, following Biden’s termination of Robb and elevation of Ohr in his place, the Region 19 Director suddenly dismissed the case, undoing explicit instructions he had given White only months earlier. Foundation staff attorneys are now appealing this dismissal, arguing that the current administration’s agenda to protect union boss privileges has tainted the NLRB’s judgment.

“Biden sought to turn the NLRB, an independent agency, into a tool of his pro-forced unionism ideology by removing Peter Robb without precedent or legal basis, and installing a union boss puppet in his place. The repercussions of that action on workers’ rights are being felt every day by independent-minded employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This has yielded some truly outrageous results: in Mr. White’s case, Seattle NLRB officials are now dismissing charges against SEIU 1199NW officials that they specifically told Mr. White to present to them.”

Mix continued: “Top SEIU bosses spent big to put Biden in the White House. Apparently their reward is a ‘get out of jail free’ card for their violations of the rights of independent-minded workers.”

NLRB asked to deny motion filed for Ohr on grounds that Biden illegally fired and replaced Senate-Confirmed General Counsel Peter Robb

Washington, DC (February 17, 2021) – Oregon-based ABC cameraman Jeremy Brown is challenging an attempt by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) so-called “Acting General Counsel” Peter Ohr to withdraw a brief that Ohr’s predecessor, Peter Robb, filed defending Brown from threats he received from a union lawyer. Brown submitted his opposition brief to the full NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Foundation staff attorneys argue that Ohr has no legal authority to withdraw Robb’s brief because President Biden’s unprecedented firing of Robb breached federal law, and Biden’s subsequent elevation of Ohr to Acting General Counsel violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Ohr was installed as Acting General Counsel by President Biden in January, following Biden’s unprecedented move only minutes after his inauguration to oust Robb as General Counsel, despite nearly eleven months remaining on Robb’s Senate-confirmed term.

Since the office of NLRB General Counsel was established in 1947, no sitting General Counsel of the NLRB has ever been terminated by a president before the end of their Senate-confirmed four-year term, not even when the White House changed hands. For example, Obama’s pick for General Counsel, former union lawyer Richard Griffin, remained the General Counsel for most of the first year after Trump’s election (until Griffin’s term expired on 10/31/17).

Brown’s brief contends that the National Labor Relations Act’s “creation of a four-year term” for the NLRB General Counsel and the “absence of language providing that the position serves at the pleasure of the President” together demonstrate that Biden lacked authority to remove Robb. “[C]onverting the Agency’s General Counsel into a purely political position” as Biden attempted with Robb’s firing, the brief continues, “would do irreparable damage to the NLRB’s function as an independent agency responsible for” enforcing private sector labor law.

Regarding Ohr’s installment after Robb’s unprecedented removal, the brief explains that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution “draws a broad and stark distinction between inferior officers (who can themselves be hired by department heads) and principal officers (who must be nominated by the president personally and confirmed by a majority of the Senate).” The brief points out that, “if the President can remove a principal officer and indefinitely assign that officer’s responsibilities to someone who lacks Senate confirmation,” as Biden did, “this central distinction is largely illusory” and no longer provides the Senate a check on the president’s power.

Oregon Cameraman Wins Ruling Charging NABET Bosses with Illegal Dues Seizures

A December 3 ruling by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Local 51 union bosses have, since April 2019, breached federal labor law by violating Jeremy Brown’s rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.

Beck stipulates that union bosses can only compel employees, like Brown, who decline formal union membership to pay for specific, limited costs directly related to the union’s bargaining functions. An employee cannot be required to pay for the union’s political, lobbying and other non-bargaining expenditures. As applied by the courts and the NLRB, Beck also requires union officials to provide such employees an independent audit of the union’s financial breakdown and the process by which they calculate the reduced fee amount, among other disclosures.

The ALJ ordered that NABET Local 51 provide Brown with “a good faith determination of the reduced dues and fees objectors must pay,” “reimburse Brown for all dues and fees collected” beyond what is required by Beck, with interest, and post notices informing the employees in Brown’s workplace of the decision.

While the case was being litigated, however, Brown received a series of intimidating messages from NABET’s lawyer, who threatened to seek “damages” against Brown if he did not comply with union demands to preserve evidence.

Brown’s charges against NABET concerning the menacing correspondence are now before the full NLRB. Robb’s brief, which Ohr’s motion asks to withdraw, supports Brown’s Foundation-provided attorneys’ argument that the Board should hold that the threats were unlawful.

“Almost every day of Peter Ohr’s ersatz tenure as NLRB ‘Acting General Counsel’ confirms the obvious: that President Biden fired Robb to protect the privileges of his union political allies and help them escape legal scrutiny with ease, always at the expense of workers’ individual rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.

“The full NLRB should reject Ohr’s attempt to cancel Robb’s brief in this case, and rule both that Robb’s removal was unlawful and that Biden’s designation of Ohr as ‘acting’ General Counsel violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause,” added Mix.

DC Board will review regional ruling ordering workers’ ballots be destroyed and not counted due to unrelated “blocking charges” union officials filed

Washington, DC (February 12, 2021) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, will hear Michigan Rieth-Riley Construction Company employee Rayalan Kent and his coworkers’ case, following a Request for Review filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

This is the latest development in a months-long effort by Rieth-Riley employees to exercise their right to vote unpopular International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324 union bosses out of their workplace.

In November 2020, Detroit NLRB officials ruled that the ballots that Kent and his coworkers had already cast in their vote to remove the union should be destroyed. That decision will now be reviewed. Even though Kent had submitted two valid petitions requesting a decertification vote, Detroit NLRB officials dismissed both petitions just minutes before the ballots were slated to be counted due to so-called “blocking charges” filed by union bosses.

Kent submitted his latest petition for a vote to remove the union in August 2020, with signatures from well over the number of his coworkers required by law to trigger such a vote. The petition was submitted in the hopes that new July 2020 protections set by the NLRB in Washington, DC, would better safeguard from union legal maneuvering their right to vote out the union. Kent’s Foundation-provided attorneys also invoked those reforms in a Request for Review submitted in April 2020 in defense of his first decertification petition, which the Board denied.

The NLRB Regional Director in Detroit dismissed Kent and his coworkers’ two petitions by citing unproven allegations IUOE officials have made against Rieth-Riley management in “blocking charges.”

According to Kent’s appeal, the Region’s decision ignored a recent NLRB rule that largely eliminated “blocking charges” as grounds for curtailing decertification votes. The reforms mandate that in nearly all cases workers’ requested ballot should proceed immediately, with the votes then promptly tallied before the NLRB deals with any “blocking charge” allegations union officials filed.

The purpose of the reforms, which heavily cited comments the Foundation submitted to the NLRB, is to stop union officials from maintaining monopoly bargaining power despite widespread worker opposition for months or even years while often-unrelated union allegations against employers are litigated.

The NLRB’s final rule, in response to arguments made in the Foundation’s comments, requires that votes be tallied and results announced unless the charges allege the employer has improperly aided the decertification petition: Even then, the votes still will be counted unless a complaint against the employer has been issued within sixty days.

Nevertheless, the NLRB Regional Director declined to even hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there is a link between IUOE union bosses’ claims and Kent and his coworkers’ effort to remove the union: Instead, she claimed that the Region’s “investigation” was sufficient and takes priority over the NLRB’s new rules regarding “blocking charges.”

The workers’ appeal pointed out that, “even under the old rules, the Region is misapplying the law by dismissing the petitions.” It explains that the union bosses’ “unfair labor practice allegations do not relate to the election itself. Further, the Region did not conduct a hearing before it found a causal connection between the Employer’s alleged conduct and the decertification petitions.”

“While we are pleased that Region 7’s decision to destroy Mr. Kent and his coworkers’ ballots will now be reviewed, years of litigation should not be required just so workers can exercise their right to vote out union bosses they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We proudly stand with Mr. Kent and all workers who seek to exercise this right without union boss interference.”