Workers File Suit After Company and Union Violate Utah’s Right to Work Law
Workers File Suit After Company and Union Violate Utah’s Right to Work Law
Union officials confiscate nearly $10,000 in illegal union dues
Salt Lake City, UT (February 25, 2013) – Four Progress Rail Services Corporation workers have filed a lawsuit alleging the company and a local union violated their rights under Utah’s popular Right to Work law and illegally coerced them into paying thousands of dollars in union dues.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the four workers – Bryan Rees, James Rogers, Richard Simone, and Jason Wilson – filed the lawsuit against Progress Rail and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen/International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 6601 union in the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County.
IAM Local 6601 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace. In about May 2006, Local 6601 union officials and Progress Rail, which repairs railroad cars, negotiated a contract that contained a forced dues clause that requires all covered employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under Utah’s Right to Work law, workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job.
Workers File Suit After Company and Union Violate Utah’s Right to Work Law
Salt Lake City, UT (February 25, 2013) – Four Progress Rail Services Corporation workers have filed a lawsuit alleging the company and a local union violated their rights under Utah’s popular Right to Work law and illegally coerced them into paying thousands of dollars in union dues.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the four workers – Bryan Rees, James Rogers, Richard Simone, and Jason Wilson – filed the lawsuit against Progress Rail and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen/International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 6601 union in the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County.
IAM Local 6601 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining powers over the workplace. In about May 2006, Local 6601 union officials and Progress Rail, which repairs railroad cars, negotiated a contract that contained a forced dues clause that requires all covered employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under Utah’s Right to Work law, workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job.
All four workers allege in the suit that when they started working at Progress Rail at various dates between December of 2005 and August 2011, union officials informed them that union membership and full dues payments were a condition of their employment. As a result, union officials confiscated up to nearly $10,000 in illegal union dues payments from the workers’ paychecks until October 2012, months after the workers found out about their rights under Utah’s Right to Work law.
Under Utah’s Right to Work law, workers have the unconditional right refrain from union membership and dues payments.
“For years, IAM Local 6601 union bosses kept workers in the dark about their rights and took thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money in violation of Utah’s popular Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union’s careless disregard for these workers’ rights underscores the need for more states to pass Right to Work protections for their workers.”
Utah enacted its Right to Work law in 1955. Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for employees. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.
DC Appeals Court Orders NLRB to Respond to Foundation Petition
Earlier this month, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking the court to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to suspend further action in a case that expanded union bosses’ powers to charge nonmember workers for union political lobbying.
The petition was filed after the Board held that a union hierarchy could force nurses in Rhode Island to pay for union bosses’ political lobbying, including lobbying in the state of Vermont.
Foundation attorneys filed the petition after the court ruled in January that President Barack Obama’s controversial purported "recess appointments" to the Board are unconstitutional. The court held President Obama could not constitutionality make those appointments without U.S. Senate confirmation because the Senate was not in recess.
Today, the court ordered the NLRB to respond to the Foundation’s petition within 30 days, and then allows Foundation attorneys to respond within 15 days after the NLRB responds.
The demand for briefing on the petition suggests the court’s willingness to grant the writ of prohibition that would order the NLRB to cease and desist action on the Geary case. Stay tuned.
California teacher: “If unions do so much for members, why bully?”
Writing in The Orange County Register, former teacher Larry Sand exposes the hypocrisy of teacher unions’ rhetoric on Right to Work:
Teachers unions are forever telling its members how much the union does for them in the way of wages, job benefits, etc. You would think that an organization that does so much for its members wouldn’t have to resort to bullying to keep them in the fold. But the unions know that without forcing the issue, many teachers would just say, "No." For instance, in Wisconsin, after Act 10 came into law allowing teachers to quit their union, about 30 percent have already quit with more to follow this June when their contracts expire.
Well said. If unions are providing valuable services, as they claim, they shouldn’t have to rely on coercion to collect dues and attract members. And if teachers and other workers are no longer joining and paying dues voluntarily, union bosses should adjust their sales pitch instead of resorting to compulsion.
Sand goes on to demolish the "free rider" myth peddled by anti-Right to Work advocates:
It is a compelling argument, but untrue. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the Act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees.
Read the whole thing here.
Teacher Wins Settlement after Union Bosses Violate Her Constitutional Rights
Teacher Wins Settlement after Union Bosses Violate Her Constitutional Rights
Case shows why Act 10 is needed to protect state workers
Madison, WI (February 21, 2013) – A former Greenwood, Wisconsin teacher has won a settlement from a local teacher union and the school district for refusing to honor her rights under Act 10, and for failing to follow constitutional disclosure requirements.
In September, Amy Anaya filed two complaints with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Anaya was a School District of Greenwood teacher for a year, beginning in August 2011, after Act 10 was enacted. In September 2011, Greenwood Education Association (GEA) union officials approached Anaya and illegally told her that she “had to” sign the union’s membership form. Anaya informed them that she had no desire to become a member of the union.
Teacher Wins Settlement after Union Bosses Violate Her Constitutional Rights
Madison, WI (February 21, 2013) – A former Greenwood, Wisconsin teacher has won a settlement from a local teacher union and the school district for refusing to honor her rights under Act 10, and for failing to follow constitutional disclosure requirements.
In September, Amy Anaya filed two complaints with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Anaya was a School District of Greenwood teacher for a year, beginning in August 2011, after Act 10 was enacted. In September 2011, Greenwood Education Association (GEA) union officials approached Anaya and illegally told her that she “had to” sign the union’s membership form. Anaya informed them that she had no desire to become a member of the union.
In December 2011, GEA union officials again demanded that Anaya join the union, and Anaya again informed them that she was not interested in joining. Under Wisconsin’s Act 10 public-sector unionism reforms, a nonmember has the right to refrain from paying any union dues or fees as a condition of their employment.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that a worker has a First Amendment right to refrain from formal union membership at any time. With passage of Act 10, no Wisconsin teacher can be forced to pay any union dues or fees as a job condition.
The union failed to provide Anaya with her U.S. Supreme Court-mandated constitutional protections and the school district deducted full union dues from her paychecks for the entire year.
Under the settlement, Anaya received a refund of most of the illegally-seized union dues.
“Teacher union bosses and school officials ignored state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to illegally coerce this teacher into full dues paying union ranks against her will,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “This case underscores just how important Act 10 is in protecting Wisconsin public employees from forced unionism abuses such as this.”
“No worker should ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment,” added Mix. “We hope that the Governor and the legislature will work quickly to provide these protections to Wisconsin’s private sector workforce, too.”
FOUNDATION ACTION: Appeals Court Strikes Down Obama Labor Appointments
NOTE: This article is from the upcoming issue of Foundation Action, our bi-monthly newsletter. You can sign up to receive a print edition of the newsletter here.
For more on the issues covered in this article, check out the following news releases:
- Worker Advocate Seeks to Halt Obama Labor Board from Acting in Union Lobbying Case
- Right to Work Legal Director Testifies Before Congress on Barriers to Enforcing Employees’ Rights Not to Pay for Union Politics
WIN: Appeals Court Strikes Down Obama Labor Board Appointments
Another Foundation legal challenge against unconstitutional recess appointees continues
WASHINGTON, DC?- In late January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down President Barack Obama’s controversial “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief against the appointments in that case for four workers who are receiving free legal assistance from the Foundation in cases pending before the NLRB.
In January 2012, Obama announced the recess appointments of three new NLRB members, including former union lawyer Richard Griffin, despite the fact that the Senate was not officially in recess. If the three members were not legitimately appointed — as the court ruled — the Board lacks the necessary three member quorum to issue rulings, thus invalidating a year’s worth of pro-Big Labor decisions.
“Today, the Court of Appeals agreed with Foundation attorneys: Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the NLRB clearly violate the Constitution,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, when the decision was announced. “This is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB.”
“We hope this decision will serve as a persuasive example to other federal courts examining the validity of Obama’s purported recess appointments,” continued Mix.
Foundation cases against the NLRB recess appointments proceed
Meanwhile, another legal challenge to the recess appointments spearheaded by Foundation staff attorneys is pending from Arizona.
Seven Fry’s Food Stores employees — including Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence — originally filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.
Because Arizona has a Right to Work law, workers cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Upset by union-instigated strike threats, the employees and hundreds of others resigned their union memberships and revoked their dues deduction authorizations when union officials did not have a contract at their workplaces.
After union bosses refused to honor their requests to cut off their dues payments, Jones and her coworkers approached the National Right to Work Foundation for help. Foundation staff attorneys had just announced an offer of free legal assistance to any workers who wished to leave the UFCW after union bosses announced their strike.
The employees’ charges prompted the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to agree that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were revocable at will when there was no contract in effect.
Although the Regional Director issued a complaint on the workers’ charges, the NLRB — including Obama’s “recess appointments” — ruled in the union’s favor and dismissed the complaint.
In the workers’ latest brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., Foundation staff attorneys argue that Obama’s “recess appointments” are unconstitutional and, therefore, the Board lacked the quorum necessary to rule on their case.
“This is just another example of how Obama’s recess appointees have consistently favored Big Labor over independent workers’ interests,” said Mix.
Opportunistic Teamsters lawyers also attack recess appointees
Ironically enough, Teamster lawyers have actually latched on to the legal arguments against Obama’s NLRB recess appointees in an effort to overturn a recent Foundation legal victory.
Last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld an?NLRB ruling against a local Teamster union policy that discriminated against nonunion workers employed by Interstate Bakeries in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma worker Kirk Rammage received free assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation during his six and a half year legal battle challenging the Teamster union’s discriminatory policy.
Rammage was the single nonunion sales representative with Dolly Madison for over 15 years before his division was merged in 2005 with Wonder Bread/Hostess. Although the company initially wanted to protect Rammage’s seniority during the merger, Teamsters Local 523 union officials insisted that union members receive preferential treatment by putting Rammage at the bottom of the seniority roster despite his longer workplace tenure. The company eventually caved in to the union bosses’ demand.
The Tenth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s ruling and slapped Teamster Local 523 with monetary sanctions for the frivolous nature of the union’s appeal. Undeterred, Teamster lawyers are now contesting the award of monetary compensation to Rammage at an NLRB compliance hearing, arguing among other things that a monetary award would be illegitimate because the Obama Administration NLRB appointees were illegitimately installed during a Senate session.
“Teamsters bosses have demonstrated how two-faced they are in defense of their forced-dues powers,”?said Mix. “For Big?Labor, the Constitution isn’t the law of the land. It’s a tool they usually ignore but occasionally use to attempt to justify pushing more workers into their forced-dues paying ranks.”
Union Faces Charges for Attempting to Bribe Employees with Money, Immigration Promises
Toledo, OH (February 13, 2013) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a Nova Services employee has filed unfair labor practice charges against the Ironworkers Local 55 union for attempting to bribe and threaten him and his coworkers into supporting a recent union organizing drive.
Fifteen other Nova Services employees have also retained a Foundation staff attorney to represent them.
Ironworkers Local 55 is currently engaged in an aggressive organizing campaign at Nova Services facilities. In August 2012, a union official told employees at an organizing meeting that he could provide them with legal immigration status in exchange for supporting the union. Union operatives also made similar offers individually to at least six employees.
Later that month, union officials threatened to report their employer’s immigration violations if employees failed to support the Ironworkers’ organizing drive. Union officials have continued to make similar threats and offers over the past six months.
The charge details how union organizers also resorted to outright bribery to obtain employee support. In August, one union organizer offered a worker $50,000 in exchange for supporting the union’s campaign. Another worker was offered $3,000 to back the union. Other employees were offered weekly payments and waivers for union initiation fees.
The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency responsible for administering private-sector labor law.
“Instead of making a straightforward case to employees for their union, Ironworker operatives resorted to threats and outright bribery,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union’s underhanded strategy once again emphasizes the importance of secret ballot elections in the workplace, which ensure that employees are free from threats, bribery, or coercion when making their decision about whether or not to support a union.”
Local Cleaning Service Union Forced to Clean Up Its Act in Ongoing Federal Labor Dispute
Local Cleaning Service Union Forced to Clean Up Its Act in Ongoing Federal Labor Dispute
Case underscores need for Massachusetts Right to Work law
Boston, MA (February 14, 2013) – Workers caught in a battle between a local union and Lynn-based Complete Cleaning, Inc. have won a federal settlement from the union after union officials illegally claimed to have monopoly bargaining privileges over the workers.
The settlement stems from federal unfair labor practice charges filed by Complete Cleaning worker Jairo Hernandez of Lynn against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 615. Hernandez filed the charges with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
SEIU Local 615 officials tried to claim monopoly bargaining privileges over Complete Cleaning’s workers even though workers nearly unanimously oppose the union hierarchy in their workplace. Under federal law, it is illegal for a union to claim monopoly bargaining powers over a workplace without support of the employees.
Local Cleaning Service Union Forced to Clean Up Its Act in Ongoing Federal Labor Dispute
Boston, MA (February 14, 2013) – Workers caught in a battle between a local union and Lynn-based Complete Cleaning, Inc. have won a federal settlement from the union after union officials illegally claimed to have monopoly bargaining privileges over the workers.
The settlement stems from federal unfair labor practice charges filed by Complete Cleaning worker Jairo Hernandez of Lynn against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 615. Hernandez filed the charges with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
SEIU Local 615 officials tried to claim monopoly bargaining privileges over Complete Cleaning’s workers even though workers nearly unanimously oppose the union hierarchy in their workplace. Under federal law, it is illegal for a union to claim monopoly bargaining powers over a workplace without support of the employees.
Furthermore, the SEIU filed federal charges against Complete Cleaning in an attempt to force the employer to negotiate a contract with the union. The workers feared that, because Massachusetts does not have a Right to Work law making union dues payments strictly voluntary, SEIU officials would have demanded a contract that would force Complete Cleaning’s workers into union dues payments against their will.
Hernandez filed the charges for himself and his coworkers with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Boston. The settlement requires the SEIU union hierarchy to stop trying to claim monopoly bargaining powers over the workers unless and until it can show that it has majority employee support.
““SEIU officials attempted to exploit their special government-granted privilege to clean these Complete Cleaning workers’ pockets of forced union dues,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Massachusetts needs a Right to Work law to make it less difficult for workers to keep predatory union bosses in check.”
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.
