NLRB Region 7 in Detroit abruptly issued order dismissing workers’ petition for the vote just hours before the ballots were scheduled to be counted

Detroit, MI (November 16, 2020) – Employees of the Rieth-Riley Construction Company have just filed an emergency appeal with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, asking the Board to overturn an NLRB Regional Director’s last minute decision cancelling the workers’ vote whether to remove International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324 from their workplace. The Region issued this order just hours before the ballots were to be counted and after the workers’ votes had all been cast.

Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represent the construction workers in the case without charge. This is the latest development in a months-long effort by Rieth-Riley workers to eject unpopular IUOE officials, in which employee Rayalan Kent and his coworkers have submitted two successive petitions to obtain a decertification election.

Although an election by mail finally began last month, on November 9, mere hours before the NLRB Detroit Region was to count the votes, the Regional Director issued a decision dismissing Kent and his coworkers’ petitions. Absent action by the NLRB in Washington, DC, the workers’ votes in their long-sought decertification election will be destroyed and never counted.

Kent submitted his latest petition for a vote to remove the union in August, with signatures from well over the number of his coworkers required by law to trigger such a vote. This petition was submitted in the hopes that new protections from the NLRB in Washington, DC, which became effective at the end of July, 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 this April 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 so-called “blocking charges.”

The Region’s decision flies in the face of reforms the NLRB enacted through the rulemaking process that largely eliminate “blocking charges” as a means for delaying a vote. The reforms instead mandate a system in which employees usually can exercise immediately their right to vote on whether a union should stay before the NLRB deals with any unfair labor practice charges filed against their employer.

The purpose of the reforms, which heavily cited comments Foundation attorneys submitted to the NLRB, is to stop union officials from imposing themselves on dissatisfied workers 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, specifically requires that votes be tallied and results announced unless the charges allege that the employer has improperly aided the decertification petition, and even then the votes 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 causal link between IUOE union bosses’ claims and Kent and his coworkers’ effort to remove the union, claiming that the Region’s “investigation” was sufficient and takes priority over the NLRB’s new rules regarding “blocking charges.”

The workers’ appeal points out that, “even under the old rules, the Region is misapplying the law by dismissing the petitions.” It explains that the “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.”

Commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix: “Rieth-Riley employees have already had to endure many months of union boss stonewalling just to exercise their right to vote out an unpopular union. NLRB Region 7’s current decision to stifle further the employees’ will makes the whole situation even more outrageous and rigged in favor of union power. The NLRB in Washington should immediately overturn this decision and order the Region to count the ballots as NLRB rules dictate.”

Mix added, “NLRB Region 7’s decision completely ignores the amended rule the NLRB in Washington issued in July, which clearly delineates why employees’ right to vote should not be delayed or hindered by unproven or unrelated union accusations against an employer. We will continue to fight for Mr. Kent and his coworkers until their long-overdue right to free themselves from the unwanted Operating Engineers union is vindicated.”

SPFPA union will pay thousands of dollars in refunds of dues illegally taken from guards to end federal Labor Board case against the union

Las Vegas, NV (November 5, 2020) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Las Vegas security guard Justin Stephens and his coworkers have won a settlement against the Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union, which they charged in April with seizing dues from their paychecks in violation of their legal rights. As part of the settlement, union bosses are required to refund more than $4,200 to two dozen security guards, including Stephens, whose timely resignations from union membership and attempts to cut off dues deductions were rejected by union officials who hastily extended their monopoly bargaining agreement with the guards’ employer.

According to Stephens’ charge filed at Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Phoenix, SPFPA officials extended the bargaining contract with Stephens’ employer, North American Security, on January 31, 2020. The extension occurred one day after Stephens and the vast majority of his fellow employees at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas sent letters to the union stating that they no longer wanted it as the monopoly bargaining agent in their workplace.

The charge explained that Stephens later submitted a batch of letters to SPFPA officials in which he and his fellow employees tried to exercise their rights to resign union membership and stop dues deductions from their paychecks. These letters were sent just before the previous contract between North American Security and the SPFPA was supposed to expire, on March 31, within the period when the employees could lawfully end dues deductions. Because Nevada has enacted Right to Work protections for its employees, union bosses are forbidden from requiring any employee to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.

The charge asserted that the union “did not acknowledge the timely revocation the employees made on the anniversary” of the contract, ostensibly because the union officials’ hurried contract extension eliminated any opportunity the employees had to cut off union dues before the existing contract’s March 31 expiration.

SPFPA bosses kept collecting full union dues “from all non-member bargaining unit employees” in violation of their right under the National Labor Relations Act to refrain from union activities and support, according to the charge. Stephens’ charge also asserted that the unions’ sudden extension of the monopoly bargaining contract after the workers notified the union about their opposition amounted to “an apparent attempt to avoid a decertification” vote to remove the union.

The settlement requires SPFPA officials to process any timely resignations by security guards and notify North American Security to cease dues deductions from those whose resignations they have already processed. SPFPA bosses must also return all dues seized from Stephens’ and his coworkers’ paychecks in violation of their rights. In the future, the settlement stipulates, union officials must always “accept and timely process” resignations and requests to cut off dues.

“It’s good news that Mr. Stephens and his hardworking colleagues have gotten back dues that were illegally taken from them by SPFPA union bosses who have demonstrated they are more interested in stuffing their coffers with union dues than respecting the wishes of the rank-and-file workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This type of legal trickery used by union bosses to stay in power even over the objections of most workers shows why the NLRB should eliminate the numerous policies that block workers from voting out or otherwise removing an unwanted union.”

“Ultimately, the root of this problem is the federal labor law which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining powers, allowing them to force their so-called ‘representation’ on individual workers who don’t want it and believe they would be better off without it,” added Mix.

Final settlement requires notice informing workers of legal rights and opportunity to obtain refunds of dues taken because of omissions

Portland, OR (November 4, 2020) – Two Bon Appetit foodservice workers at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, have just won a settlement in their case charging UNITE HERE Local 8 union bosses with hindering the informed exercise of their right to choose whether or not to be union members by failing to provide employees the percentage reduction in union dues they would be required to pay as nonmembers. The workers received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

Bon Appetit employees Terry Denton and Alejandro Martinez Cuevas originally filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against UNITE HERE Local 8 in August 2018, arguing the lack of information infringed their rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Because Oregon lacks a Right to Work law, private sector employees who refrain from formal union membership can be required to pay some fees to a union as a condition of employment. However, union officials must follow the requirements of the Beck decision and cannot require workers to pay dues or fees for activities unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as union political activities.

The Regional Director for NLRB Region 19 issued a formal complaint against UNITE HERE officials in August 2019. This complaint came after a memo from the NLRB General Counsel’s office which advised the Regions that the NLRB requires union officials to keep all workers apprised of Beck fee reductions.

Union bosses and the Regional Director attempted to settle this case without offering a remedy for all bargaining unit members. This initial settlement merely required union agents to post notices announcing that they would inform employees of the reduction in union fees that would result if they asserted their rights under Beck, but did not require the union to offer employees who had received the deficient notice the ability to resign their union memberships retroactively and recover the dues that had been taken unlawfully from their wages.

Denton and Martinez Cuevas objected to the terms of the settlement agreement. They had filed charges for themselves and their fellow employees, who also deserved an opportunity to exercise their rights.

Despite the two employees’ objections, the Regional Director approved the settlement. Foundation staff attorneys then filed an appeal to the NLRB General Counsel, which was sustained in November 2019. The General Counsel’s decision noted that the original settlement agreement did “not provide an appropriate remedy” and ordered Region 19 to move forward with the charges.

Faced with the threat of a renewed prosecution by the NLRB, UNITE HERE officials backed down and settled the case with a more complete remedy. Union officials now must provide notices informing all employees, current and future, of the reduction that will be made to their union dues if they choose to be nonmembers. UNITE HERE officials will also reimburse current employees who resign their union memberships retroactively for dues money that they have paid in excess of the nonmember rate.

“Although it’s good news that after over two years Ms. Denton and Mr. Martinez Cuevas have finally vindicated their and their coworkers’ right under Beck to refrain from funding union political activities as a condition of employment, no worker in America should be forced to accept or pay for one-size-fits-all union boss ‘representation’ that they do not want,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “All American workers need Right to Work protections, which put the decision to join and financially support union activities exactly where it should be – in the hands of individual workers.”

CSEA officials forced nonmember employees to pay fees in violation of the Constitution as recognized in Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision

Washington, DC (November 2, 2020) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys just filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court for two Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection employees, in their class action lawsuit to require Connecticut State Employees Association (CSEA SEIU Local 2001) union officials to return forced dues money seized from them and their coworkers in violation of their First Amendment rights.

The employees, Kiernan Wholean and James Grillo, maintain that CSEA union bosses and State of Connecticut officials infringed on the First Amendment rights recognized in the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, which was decided in June 2018, the Court held that no public sector employee can be required to pay dues as a condition of employment, and further ruled that dues deductions from any public employee’s paycheck can only be made with the employee’s affirmative and knowing waiver of the right not to pay.

Wholean and Grillo, who are not members of CSEA, originally filed their case in 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut shortly before the High Court decided Janus. The State ceased deducting dues from their paychecks at CSEA’s behest following a letter to the State Comptroller from a National Right to Work Foundation attorney which threatened legal action for any dues deductions from non-members that continued after Janus. However, CSEA union officials continue to refuse to refund dues that they took from Wholean, Grillo, and other nonmembers in violation of the Janus First Amendment standard before the decision, even though they knew the employees never consented to pay.

The District Court, and later the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, both accepted CSEA lawyers’ so-called “good faith” argument for letting union bosses keep the dues collected in violation of the nonmembers’ constitutional rights. Wholean and Grillo’s Foundation staff attorneys argue in their petition to the Supreme Court that such a defense has never existed under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the statute under which the lawsuit is brought. Section 1983 specifically imposes liability on those who violate the constitutional rights of others while acting “under color of” existing law.

The Supreme Court has never addressed whether there is a “good faith” defense under Section 1983. In a similar Foundation-backed case, two federal judges at the Third Circuit recently opined that such a defense does not exist, disagreeing with the decisions of other Circuits. Wholean and Grillo’s petition cites this confusion as a vital reason why the High Court should hear their case. If successful, their lawsuit could result in CSEA repaying potentially millions in forced union fees seized from June 13, 2015, until Connecticut stopped the deductions, in accordance with Connecticut’s statute of limitations.

Wholean and Grillo’s petition is now the sixth under consideration by the Supreme Court in which public employees seek refunds for dues taken in contravention of the First Amendment before the Janus ruling. Four of these petitions have been filed by Foundation staff attorneys.

Among those petitions is the continuation of the original Janus plaintiff Mark Janus’ case, who suffered from unconstitutional deductions while employed as a child support specialist for the State of Illinois. If the Supreme Court decides in the petitioners’ favor in any of these cases, it could set a precedent triggering the return of hundreds of millions in illegal dues dollars in cases across the country.

“The lower courts have allowed CSEA union bosses to profit from their past unconstitutional deductions, trampling the Janus rights of Mr. Wholean, Mr. Grillo and their coworkers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “With six petitions on this issue now pending with the High Court and more to be filed soon, it is time the Supreme Court hears this issue and ends the denial of justice for tens of thousands of nonmember government employees whose First Amendment rights were violated.”

“Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the federal statute under which all these cases were filed, was specifically intended to allow individuals to remedy the deprivation of their rights when it occurs under color of law,” added Mix. “Given Section 1983’s intent, it is outrageous that union bosses have thus far been allowed to keep money seized in violation of the First Amendment because it was authorized by then-existing but unconstitutional law. That result is especially specious because, as the Supreme Court recognized in Janus, union bosses have been ‘on notice’ from the Court since 2012 that forcing government employees to pay union fees was likely unconstitutional.”

SEIU union bosses seized dues from providers without their consent, then forbade them from stopping deductions outside of short “escape period”

San Francisco, CA (October 23, 2020) – Seven California home healthcare providers are appealing their class-action lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal in Polk v. Yee was filed with free legal assistance from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and West Coast-based Freedom Foundation who jointly represent the seven plaintiffs.

The home healthcare providers’ lawsuit states that union officials skimmed dues money from their and other providers’ Medicaid payments in violation of their First Amendment rights and federal law regarding Medicaid payments. State of California controller Betty Yee is also named as a defendant in the suit for the state’s role in abetting the illegal deductions.

The providers maintain that the union and state are infringing on their rights recognized by the Supreme Court in Right to Work Foundation-won cases Harris v. Quinn (2014), and Janus v. AFSCME (2018). In Harris, the Court ruled that unions contravene the First Amendment when they force home healthcare providers who receive some subsidies from the state to pay union dues. Similarly, in Janus v. AFSCME, the High Court held that no public sector employee could be forced to subsidize union activities as a condition of employment, and that government agencies can only deduct union payments from a public worker’s wages with an affirmative waiver of his or her First Amendment right not to pay.

The plaintiffs, Delores Polk, Heather Herrick, Lien Loi, Peter Loi, Susan McKay, Jolene Montoya, and Scott Ungar all participate in the In-Home Support Services (IHSS) program, which allots Medicaid funds to those who provide home-based aid to people with disabilities. Their lawsuit explains that “even though they are not public employees,” the State of California considers home healthcare providers as such for unionization purposes and takes union dues from them at the behest of SEIU officials.

Polk and the other plaintiffs recount in the lawsuit that SEIU union bosses began taking cuts of their Medicaid subsidies after confusing phone calls or mandatory orientation sessions, in each case never explaining that the providers have a First Amendment right under both Harris and Janus to reject union membership and dues payments.

On top of that, after each of the plaintiffs contacted the SEIU attempting to exercise their right to stop the flow of dues, SEIU operatives informed them that they could only opt out of union dues during short union-created “escape periods” of 10-30 days once per year. The lawsuit also argues that federal law governing IHSS forbids diverting any part of Medicaid payments to “any other party” besides the providers.

The lawsuit seeks a ruling that both the taking of union dues without knowing consent and the policy restricting the providers from ending the dues deductions are unconstitutional. The providers also seek refunds of all money that they and any other IHSS program participants had taken from their payments through the illegal scheme.

“It is unconscionable that SEIU union bosses are siphoning money out of these providers’ pockets merely because those they aid inside their own homes happen to receive state subsidies for their care,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This dues skim scam is a blatant violation of federal law and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Harris and Janus. It must be stopped immediately.”

“Unfortunately, the hard-working caregivers in this case are not the only ones being victimized by unions like SEIU,” said Eric Stahlfeld, the Freedom Foundation’s chief litigation counsel. “Our research shows that states like California illegally divert $150 million each year to unions from 350,000 caregivers’ Medicaid payments. While Freedom Foundation and National Right to Work Foundation advocacy has prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to formally oppose the exploitative practice, it’s up to federal courts to end it.”

Policy requires state employees to opt in to union dues deductions annually to ensure dues are collected with voluntary waiver of First Amendment rights

Lansing, MI (October 15, 2020) – A Michigan Civil Service Commission (MiCSC) policy which helps safeguard the First Amendment rights of the state’s workers under the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision survives after United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses abandoned their lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule in federal court.

The rule, which was adopted by MiCSC in October following detailed comments from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, requires Michigan state agencies to annually obtain the consent of state employees before deducting any union dues from their wages. The rule reminds state employees of their constitutional right to refuse such payments and ensures that the state deducts no union dues unless workers’ first waive their right not to pay.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented on the development:

“The Civil Service Commission rule’s endurance is a victory for Michigan state employees, who will now have their First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize union activities respected and safeguarded. That union officials so quickly dropped their attempts to scuttle the rule speaks to the strength of the legal case for it, namely that the Supreme Court clearly delineated in Janus v. AFSCME that union dues can only be taken from public employees’ paychecks with their affirmative and knowing consent.

“Given this example, public officials in other states should enact similar measures to protect their workers, because union bosses across the country continue to manipulate state laws and internal union policies to keep workers trapped in union payments against their will in violation of their First Amendment rights.”

UAW officials’ abandonment of their lawsuit comes after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected their request for a preliminary injunction against the rule earlier this month. Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that union lawyers not only failed to show that the rule was causing “irreparable harm” but that a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suit foreclosed union bosses’ ability to file one of the two claims in their suit in the first place.

The District Court’s decision denying the injunction cited arguments first presented in an amicus brief from National Right to Work Foundation and Mackinac Center Legal Foundation staff attorneys, which the judge said was “timely and helpful.”

Other states that are taking steps to shore up their public employees’ Janus rights include Alaska, where Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed an executive order creating similar protections for state employees in September 2019. Also, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill both issued legal opinions earlier this year urging public employers to notify employees that they have a First Amendment right to refuse to fund a union unless they opt-in to such payments.

Union scheme currently being challenged at Ninth Circuit blocks government workers from exercising First Amendment rights outside brief 10-day period

San Francisco, CA (October 13, 2020) – Mark Janus, the lead plaintiff in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, has just submitted an amicus brief in Belgau v. Inslee. This is a class-action case in which a group of Washington State employees are challenging a union boss-created arrangement that limits employees’ ability to exercise their First Amendment Janus right to refrain from subsidizing a union to only 10 days per year.

The brief was submitted for Janus by staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center. Janus, a former Illinois child support specialist, was represented at the Supreme Court by attorneys from both organizations, with Foundation attorney Bill Messenger presenting oral argument.

In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that compelling public workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment rights. The Court also held that union dues can only be taken from the paychecks of public workers if they clearly and affirmatively waive their right not to pay, with Justice Samuel Alito writing in the Court’s decision that “such a waiver cannot be presumed.”

In the Belgau case, lead plaintiff Melissa Belgau and six other Washington State employees have sued Washington Governor Jay Inslee and the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union for enforcing an unconstitutional “escape period” scheme. The plaintiffs all resigned their memberships and requested to cut off dues just a couple months after Janus was decided, but dues continued to be seized from their paychecks afterwards under the restrictive policy.

Their lawsuit demands that the state and union officials cease blocking workers from exercising their First Amendment right not to financially support the union, and that the union refund all dues seized from any worker who sought to end dues deductions after the Janus decision, but was denied under the policy. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the workers in September, but their attorneys have since petitioned for an en banc rehearing of the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Janus’ amicus brief emphasizes that an en banc hearing is necessary because the three-judge panel “gut[ted] the Supreme Court’s holding” by finding that it is “constitutional for a state and a union” to keep seizing payments “for union speech from objecting, nonmember employees” until an arbitrary 10-day period. The brief contends that the Constitution does not allow “states and public-sector unions” to “prohibit employees from exercising their First Amendment right to not subsidize union speech for 355-56 days of every year.”

Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and Liberty Justice Center are currently litigating more than thirty Janus-related cases, including seven jointly. That includes the continuation of Mark Janus’ own case which is seeking its second writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. In his case Janus is now pursuing a ruling that will make AFSCME union bosses refund forced fees seized from him in violation of the First Amendment, which would create a precedent that could require union officials to refund hundreds of millions of dollars from nonmember public employees across the country.

“It is shocking that despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus, government employers and private political organizations, unions, continue to place limitations on Americans’ constitutional rights,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center. “All government workers must be able to exercise their First Amendment right not to pay a union.”

“Mark Janus and his attorneys defended the First Amendment rights of public employees at the US Supreme Court and are now protecting those same freedoms by helping to challenge this egregious limitation on workers’ Janus rights,” added National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is outrageous to claim any government or public sector union boss policy can limit a worker’s constitutional rights to just 10 days each year.”

Lansing, MI (October 2, 2020) – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has just rejected a request by union lawyers for a preliminary injunction against the Michigan Civil Service Commission’s (MiCSC) new rule protecting employee freedom of choice under Janus v. AFSCME.

The court cited arguments first raised in the case in an amicus brief filed by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. Foundation President Mark Mix commented on the ruling:

“The District Court was absolutely right in rejecting union officials’ attempt to block the Civil Service Commission’s commonsense rule to ensure the state is not deducting union dues from public employees in violation of their First Amendment rights. As pointed out in our amicus brief to the court, not only are the union lawyers’ arguments wrong on the merits of the issue, but a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision specifically forecloses their ability to even bring one of their two claims in this lawsuit.”

The new MiCSC rule requires Michigan state agencies to annually obtain the consent of state employees prior to deducting any union dues from them, while reminding them that they have a right to refuse such payments. The rule helps ensure that the state is not deducting dues from any state employee who has not clearly and affirmatively waived his or her First Amendment rights, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in Janus.

The amicus brief, which was formally accepted by the court in yesterday’s order, was filed jointly by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. In accepting the brief, the order notes the court found “the amici’s contribution to be timely and helpful.”

Labor Board charge comes as federal investigation into racketeering and embezzlement within UAW reaches 15 indictments

Evart, MI (September 22, 2020) – An employee of auto parts manufacturer Ventra Evart LLC has just filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union local at her workplace, charging that union officials illegally ignored her request to cut off dues deductions from her paycheck and are still seizing money from her. Her charges were filed with Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The employee, Meagan Holmes, works as an inspector for Ventra Evart. Her charge states that in May of this year she submitted to UAW bosses a letter resigning her union membership and requesting to end dues deductions. However, according to her filing, union officials never responded and continue to deduct full union dues out of her paycheck.

Holmes’ charge argues that this violates her rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute which guarantees private sector workers the “right to refrain from any or all” union activities. The NLRB is the federal agency charged with enforcing the NLRA. Additionally, Michigan enacted Right to Work protections for its public and private sector workers in 2013, which ensure that no Wolverine State worker can be forced to subsidize a union hierarchy as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

The charge comes as a years-long federal probe into embezzlement and racketeering within the UAW’s top level continues to rack up convictions. In April, former UAW president Gary Jones pleaded guilty to pilfering more than $1 million in dues money paid by rank-and-file workers. The corruption count went up to 15 late last month after Jones’ predecessor, Dennis Williams, was indicted by federal prosecutors. He is expected to plead guilty as well. The workers’ money stolen in the scandal was spent on personal luxuries like opulent golf vacations, high-end liquor, wine and cigars, and lavish steak dinners, according to federal documents.

Another Michigan worker under UAW union officials’ bargaining power who recently obtained free legal aid from the Foundation in defending his rights is Lloyd Stoner, an employee at General Motors’ Dearborn, MI, plant. Stoner won a unanimous ruling from a three-member panel of the NLRB in Washington, D.C., last year, which ordered UAW honchos to return to him dues they had seized even after he had validly resigned his membership and revoked his dues checkoff.

“Ms. Holmes’ charge clearly demonstrates that UAW officials’ inclination to break the law is not just limited to the top bosses caught red-handed in the federal investigation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Now more than ever, all workers under the UAW’s bargaining regime need to have the power to hold union officials accountable by being able to cut off all union dues or fees.”

NLRB General Counsel prosecuting NNOC union officials for keeping so-called “neutrality agreement” hidden from workers opposed to union

Corpus Christi, TX (September 16, 2020) – A Corpus Christi-based nurse has just asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) which denied her access to a nationwide union “neutrality agreement” struck in secret between her employer, HCA Holdings (which operates Corpus Christi Medical Center and Doctor’s Regional Medical Center, among many others) and National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union organizers.

The ALJ’s decision dismissed a complaint that the NLRB General Counsel had issued for the nurse, which sought to force union officials to disclose the secret bargain after both they and HCA agents had worked to limit the nurse and her coworkers from exercising their right to vote out the union.

The nurse is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who have filed exceptions to the ALJ’s ruling and a brief supporting those exceptions with the full NLRB to get the ruling overturned. NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, the agency’s top prosecutor, has also filed similar exceptions asking the Board to review and overturn the ALJ’s ruling.

“Neutrality agreements” are secret deals finalized 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 assist union agents in squashing employee efforts to decertify, or remove, the union.

The nurse in this case, Marissa Zamora, began circulating fliers and other materials in June 2018 to educate her coworkers on how they could obtain a vote to decertify the union. Her brief states that union agents “repeatedly ripp[ed] down her fliers” and that HCA officials 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 a copy of any “neutrality agreement” that might have triggered those efforts to block her and her coworkers’ rights. All her requests were denied, despite her having conversations with HCA agents that suggested a “neutrality agreement” did exist.

Zamora filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB, challenging NNOC’s refusal to provide the secret agreement. The NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint supporting the claims in Zamora’s charges. During a two-day trial, her brief notes, it was shown that the “neutrality agreement” “in fact existed, but it was a closely guarded secret between NNOC and HCA, to be kept strictly confidential from employees and all third parties.” However, the ALJ presiding over the trial dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Zamora had never seen the agreement so her request for it was speculative. The ALJ also revoked several subpoenas that would have forced NNOC union bosses to reveal the agreement.

Zamora’s brief in support of her exceptions to the ALJ’s ruling now seeks a reversal of that decision, arguing that the ALJ erred because he held Zamora to “an impossible…Catch-22 standard” and dismissed the complaint because “she could not prove the contents of a neutrality agreement that was deliberately kept hidden from her.” The brief also argues that union officials, as the employees’ agents, have a duty to disclose everything they negotiate with the employer.

Foundation staff attorneys have assisted many employees who have been subjected to union coercion as the result of “neutrality agreements.” One of them is Seattle Embassy Suites housekeeper Gladys Bryant, who this summer received a favorable ruling from the NLRB General Counsel after UNITE HERE union bosses forced unionization on the hotel’s employees with a hasty “card check” drive. She asserted that, under a “neutrality agreement,” Embassy Suites had provided hotel workers’ personal information to union bosses, which went well beyond the “ministerial aid” standard limiting how employers can assist union bosses with unionization.

In light of Zamora’s and Bryant’s cases, and similar others filed by Foundation attorneys, the NLRB General Counsel issued a memo earlier this month instructing regional NLRB officials to take additional steps to enforce workers’ rights against such backroom “neutrality agreements.” This will end a longstanding double standard that allowed employers to provide more than “ministerial aid” as part of a “neutrality agreement” but not to equally assist workers seeking to vote out an unwanted union.

“Ms. Zamora’s case is just another example of how union bosses use secret backroom ‘neutrality agreements’ to maintain their grip on power in a workplace, even over the objections of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is long past time that the NLRB stopped looking the other way while union organizers use these backroom deals to undermine the rights of rank-and-file workers.”