Providence, RI (February 4, 2013) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) technician has won an informal settlement from a local union for violating his rights.

The settlement stems from a federal unfair labor practice charge Robert Vennerbeck of Providence filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Boston against the RISD Technical Association union – an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA) union.

Vennerbeck resigned formal union membership and revoked his union dues deduction authorization – a form used to take union dues from workers’ paychecks. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that workers have the right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership. Because Rhode Island does not have Right to Work protections making union affiliation completely voluntary, workers who refrain from formal union membership may still be forced to pay part of union dues to keep their jobs. However, nonmember workers cannot be required to pay union dues spent for union political activities and member-only events.

Vennerbeck charged that union officials refused to follow federal disclosure requirements outlined under Supreme Court precedent despite Vennerbeck’s repeated requests. In addition, the charge filed with the NLRB stated that union officials refused to provide him with an independently-audited financial breakdown of union expenditures and the opportunity to challenge before an impartial decision maker the amount of forced union fees he must pay.

In late September, union officials demanded Vennerbeck be fired from his job in an apparent attempt to retaliate against him for exercising his rights.

The settlement waives all back union dues from the past two years, rescinds the union bosses’ demand to have Vennerbeck fired from his job, and requires union officials to post a notice in the workplace informing workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

“RISD Technical Association union officials were forced to back off from their intimidation and threats toward a worker who had the temerity to not toe the union boss line and pay for their political agenda,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Rhode Island desperately needs a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for employees. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the principle of voluntary unionism.

SEIU Officials Face State Charge for Violating Home Care Provider’s Rights

Case shows desperate need for California Right to Work law

San Francisco, CA (January 31, 2013) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a San Francisco in-home care provider has filed a state charge against a local union for illegally refusing to honor her right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

On Tuesday, Shiufan Lee filed the charge with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) against Service Employees International Union-Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).

Lee attempted to exercise her right to refrain from formal union membership via phone in early August 2012, and in a letter she sent on August 3. Lee received a call from a union official where she again asked to resign from membership and full dues payments. Each time she spoke with union officials, they refused to acknowledge her resignation.

Click here to read the full release.

San Francisco, CA (January 31, 2013) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a San Francisco in-home care provider has filed a state charge against a local union for illegally refusing to honor her right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

On Tuesday, Shiufan Lee filed the charge with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) against Service Employees International Union-Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).

Lee attempted to exercise her right to refrain from formal union membership via phone in early August 2012, and in a letter she sent on August 3. Lee received a call from a union official where she again asked to resign from membership and full dues payments. Each time she spoke with union officials, they refused to acknowledge her resignation.

Lee sent additional letters to union officials on September 16 and September 26 asking that the union hierarchy allow her to exercise her rights. The charge alleges that SEIU officials never sent her a response and continued to illegally extract full union dues from Lee’s paychecks despite her repeated attempts to resign union membership.

Under California state law and federal constitutional law, workers have the unconditional right to refrain from union membership. Because California does not have Right to Work protections making union affiliation completely voluntary, workers who refrain from formal union membership may still be forced to pay part of union dues to keep their jobs. However, nonmember workers cannot be required to pay union dues spent for union political activities and member-only events.

Lee’s charge seeks an acknowledgment from SEIU officials that she is no longer a formal member, an independently-audited breakdown of union expenditures, a refund of illegally-seized union dues from her paycheck dating back to August 2012, and the posting of notices in locations where notices to employees are customarily posted informing workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

“SEIU bosses have a long history of coercing workers into paying for the union bosses’ political agenda,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “To prevent these types of forced-unionism abuses in the future, California needs to pass a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.”

Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for workers. Recent public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the principle of voluntary unionism.

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments

Right to Work Foundation attorneys argued purported recess appointments were invalid because Senate was not in recess

Washington, DC (January 25, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down President Barack Obama’s controversial purported "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief jointly with the Landmark Legal Foundation in the case, Noel Canning v. NLRB.

The brief was filed for four workers who are receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court’s decision:

"Today, the court agreed with Foundation attorneys: Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board clearly violate the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Senate was not in recess the President could not make the appointments to the NLRB without Senate confirmation.

"As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since January 3, 2012, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in 2010, the court’s ruling invalidates the Board’s biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since that time. The court’s decision in Noel Canning is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-Big Labor NLRB and will hopefully serve as a persuasive example to other federal courts deciding on the validity of Obama’s purported recess appointments."

Click here to see the press release.

Washington, DC (January 25, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down President Barack Obama’s controversial purported "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief jointly with the Landmark Legal Foundation in the case, Noel Canning v. NLRB.

The brief was filed for four workers who are receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court’s decision:

"Today, the court agreed with Foundation attorneys: Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board clearly violate the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Senate was not in recess the President could not make the appointments to the NLRB without Senate confirmation.

"As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since January 3, 2012, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in 2010, the court’s ruling invalidates the Board’s biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since that time. The court’s decision in Noel Canning is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-Big Labor NLRB and will hopefully serve as a persuasive example to other federal courts deciding on the validity of Obama’s purported recess appointments."

Worker Advocate Files Brief in Federal Dispute over Forced Unionization in Michigan Public Projects

Union bosses seek to uphold discriminatory system in awarding public contracts

Cincinnati, OH (January 24 2013) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed a brief in support of a Michigan law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.

Foundation staff attorneys filed the amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit located in Cincinnati.

Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on public construction projects. Shortly thereafter, Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and Genesse, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council union bosses challenged the law in federal court, claiming federal labor law preempts the state’s ability to opt out of mandating PLAs on state-funded public construction projects.

Click here to read the full release.

Cincinnati, OH (January 24 2013) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed a brief in support of a Michigan law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.

Foundation staff attorneys filed the amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit located in Cincinnati.

Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on public construction projects. Shortly thereafter, Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and Genesse, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council union bosses challenged the law in federal court, claiming federal labor law preempts the state’s ability to opt out of mandating PLAs on state-funded public construction projects.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys – joining attorneys representing the Associated Builders and Contractors and its Michigan affiliate and the National Federation of Independent Business – argue that a lower court’s ruling striking down the new PLA law is both radical and insupportable. The lower court held that federal labor law governing private-sector labor relations somehow compels state governments to require the unionization of workers on public projects.

Foundation attorneys also point out the discriminatory nature of PLAs sacrifices workers’ rights of free choice and imposes unwanted union representation on workers if they work on a public project.

Foundation attorneys have filed similar briefs in numerous federal courts supporting the constitutionality of state governments repealing PLA mandates.

“Project Labor Agreements effectively discriminate against the 85 percent of all construction workers who are not under union monopoly control,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “State and local governments owe it to the taxpayers to award public construction contracts to those who will do the best work at the best price, not employers who work with bureaucrats to shove a union down their workers’ throats.”

Federal Court Upholds Wisconsin Governor’s Public-Sector Unionism Reforms

Workers asked court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Chicago, IL (January 18, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, also known as "Act 10."

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees moved to intervene in the lawsuit in favor of the law after lawyers from seven unions, led by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, challenged it in federal court. The three civil servants, Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz, were permitted to file amicus briefs in the district court.

Union lawyers sought to strike down the law’s annual union recertification requirements, ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues, new limits on the scope of what union officials can demand in contract negotiations, and a provision that granted most of Wisconsin’s public employees Right to Work protections.

Click here to read the full release.

Chicago, IL (January 18, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, also known as "Act 10."

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees moved to intervene in the lawsuit in favor of the law after lawyers from seven unions, led by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, challenged it in federal court. The three civil servants, Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz, were permitted to file amicus briefs in the district court.

Union lawyers sought to strike down the law’s annual union recertification requirements, ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues, new limits on the scope of what union officials can demand in contract negotiations, and a provision that granted most of Wisconsin’s public employees Right to Work protections.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, released the following statement in regards to the court’s decision:

"The appellate court upheld all of ‘Act 10’ as constitutional. The court relied on principles established in Foundation-supported U.S. Supreme Court victories which have held that union bosses have no constitutional power to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, or constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers’ paychecks.

"The court’s decision strikes a mighty blow for individual workers who do not want anything to do with an unwanted union in their workplace. Unfortunately for Wisconsin government union bosses, the constitutionality of Right to Work laws has long been a settled question. We’re happy to report that the court rejected the union lawyers’ frivolous arguments and ensured that thousands of Wisconsin’s civil servants will continue to labor free from union coercion.

"No Wisconsin public worker should ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Now it is time for Wisconsin’s legislature to protect that right for Wisconsin’s private-sector workers and pass a private-sector Right to Work law."

Hammond, IN (January 17, 2012) – A United States District Court Judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 lawyers challenging Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement responding to the decision:

“Union bosses want to undo what thousands of Hoosier citizens have worked hard to achieve through the democratic process. Unfortunately for the IUOE, the constitutionality of state Right to Work laws has long been a settled question. We’re happy to report that Judge Simon rejected their frivolous arguments and ensured that millions of Indianans will continue to labor free from union coercion.”

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, representing four Indiana workers who support the Right to Work law, conferred with lawyers for the State of Indiana about the arguments that were made to defend the law.

The four Hoosier citizens who opposed the union’s legal challenge were David Bercot, a certified wastewater operator for the ITR Concession Company in Fort Wayne; Joel Tibbetts, a Minteq International assistant manager in Valparaiso; Douglas Richards, an employee with the Goshen-based Cequent Towing Products; and Larry Getts, a Dana Holding Corporation technician in Albion.

IUOE Local 150, headquartered in suburban Chicago, filed the lawsuit last February challenging Indiana’s Right to Work law and requesting an injunction against its implementation.

Judge Philip Simon dismissed all of the union’s claims, but he did not rule on arguments contesting the law on the grounds that it violates Indiana’s constitution, leaving that to state courts to decide. A United Steel Workers legal challenge based on different arguments is proceeding in Indiana state court, where two other Foundation-assisted employees have filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the law is consistent with their state’s constitution.

Indiana is the nation’s 24th Right to Work state. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans support the Right to Work principle, including 80 percent of union members.