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.
Right to Work Legal Director Testifies Before Congress on Barriers to Enforcing Employees’ Rights Not to Pay for Union Politics
Washington, DC (February 13, 2013) – Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, testified today before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about the need to more vigorously enforce employees’ rights to refrain from funding union politics.
LaJeunesse, who has over 40 years of experience on the Foundation’s legal staff and has argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly criticized the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for its lax enforcement of the rights of workers who wish to refrain from union affiliation. Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, private sector employees have the right to refrain from paying for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as members-only events and union political activism.
However, LaJeunesse pointed out that the Board has permitted union officials to erect a number of bureaucratic hurdles that discourage independent-minded employees from asserting their Beck rights. LaJeunesse noted that many unions now require employees to annually renew their objections to union political spending during a designated “window period,” a practice that allows union officials to continue extracting full dues from nonunion employees if they miss an arbitrary filing deadline.
Moreover, the Board has recently held that nonunion employees can be charged for organizing activities and political lobbying for “goals that are germane to collective bargaining.” This elastic interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Beck standard undermines the ability of nonunion employees to refrain from funding ideological and organizing activities they may disagree with.
“In sum, the problem is systemic,” concluded LaJeunesse. “The Board has dismally failed to protect workers’ Beck rights. Indeed, the current Board seems bent on totally eviscerating those rights.”
“As our Legal Director noted in his testimony before Congress, the Board has shown a total disregard for the rights of independent-minded employees,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope this testimony will serve as a wake-up call to concerned citizens worried about the Board’s pro-forced unionism bias.”
The full testimony can be found here.
Right to Work Legal Director Testifies Before Congress on NLRB’s Pro-Forced Unionism Agenda
Today, National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. LaJeunesse explained how the National Labor Relations Board has allowed union bosses to erect bureaucratic hurdles that discourage independent workers from asserting their rights. A copy of LaJeunesse’s testimony can be found here.
Regular Freedom@Work readers are undoubtedly familiar with the Obama NLRB’s pro-forced unionism bias. For more on the Board’s troubling agenda, click here.
Union Discriminates Against Local AT&T Worker for Exercising His Right to Work
Union Discriminates Against Local AT&T Worker for Exercising His Right to Work
Union officials make an example of nonmember to discourage other workers from exercising their rights under Indiana’s Right to Work law
Indianapolis, IN (February 12, 2013) – A local AT&T worker has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local union for discriminating against him for exercising his rights under Indiana’s new Right to Work law.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Indianapolis AT&T worker James Dawson filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Indianapolis.
In August 2012, Dawson resigned from membership in and exercised his right to refrain from paying dues to the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4900 union. Under Indiana’s Right to Work law, which was enacted in early 2012, Dawson and other private sector workers have the right to refrain from union membership and dues payments. However, a worker who exercises their rights under the state’s Right to Work law may still be forced to accept an unwanted union’s representation.
Union Discriminates Against Local AT&T Worker for Exercising His Right to Work
Indianapolis, IN (February 12, 2013) – A local AT&T worker has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local union for discriminating against him for exercising his rights under Indiana’s new Right to Work law.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Indianapolis AT&T worker James Dawson filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Indianapolis.
In August 2012, Dawson resigned from membership in and exercised his right to refrain from paying dues to the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4900 union. Under Indiana’s Right to Work law, which was enacted in early 2012, Dawson and other private sector workers have the right to refrain from union membership and dues payments. However, a worker who exercises their rights under the state’s Right to Work law may still be forced to accept an unwanted union’s representation.
CWA Local 4900 union bosses enjoy monopoly bargaining powers over all the workers in Dawson’s workplace, including Dawson. In late January, CWA Local 4900 union officials distributed copies of the union hierarchy’s monopoly bargaining agreement free of charge to union members in Dawson’s workplace. However, as detailed in his charge, when Dawson requested a copy of the monopoly bargaining agreement, union officials denied his request and in front of his coworkers demanded he pay $416 for a copy.
Dawson’s charge alleges that union officials are discriminating against him because he exercised his right to refrain from union membership. Dawson’s charge also alleges that union officials made an example of him to send a message to his coworkers that union members would be given preferred treatment over nonmembers even though nonmembers must accept the union’s “representation.”
“CWA Local 4900 union bosses are illegally discriminating against a worker who had the temerity to exercise his rights under Indiana’s popular Right to Work law,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials are making an example of James Dawson to discourage other workers from exercising their Right to Work.”
Nurses Challenge Federal Agency’s Attempt to Install Illegitimate Union
Nurses Challenge Federal Agency’s Attempt to Install Illegitimate Union
Union organizers’ intimidation sways outcome of unionization election
Massillon, OH (February 12, 2013) – Two local nurses have filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to intervene in a federal case in which the agency is attempting to force a union hierarchy’s “representation” on the nurses in the wake of a tainted organizing election.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Affinity Medical Center nurses Susan Kelley and Cinda Keener filed the motion last week.
National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union organizers and Affinity management entered into a “neutrality agreement” that gave union organizers preferential access to the facility, helping them to impose monopoly bargaining on the nurses. Company and union officials refused to disclose the terms of the secret agreement despite repeated requests from the nurses.
Additionally, non-employee union organizers stalked, reported on, and attempted to get company management to retaliate against nurses who exercised their rights to oppose the unionization of their workplace. Company officials, at the behest of NNOC union bosses, even made one of the nurses who opposed unionization document the activities of fellow nurses who campaigned against unionization.
Nurses Challenge Federal Agency’s Attempt to Install Illegitimate Union
Massillon, OH (February 12, 2013) – Two local nurses have filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to intervene in a federal case in which the agency is attempting to force a union hierarchy’s “representation” on the nurses in the wake of a tainted organizing election.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Affinity Medical Center nurses Susan Kelley and Cinda Keener filed the motion last week.
National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union organizers and Affinity management entered into a “neutrality agreement” that gave union organizers preferential access to the facility, helping them to impose monopoly bargaining on the nurses. Company and union officials refused to disclose the terms of the secret agreement despite repeated requests from the nurses.
Additionally, non-employee union organizers stalked, reported on, and attempted to get company management to retaliate against nurses who exercised their rights to oppose the unionization of their workplace. Company officials, at the behest of NNOC union bosses, even made one of the nurses who opposed unionization document the activities of fellow nurses who campaigned against unionization.
The two nurses point out that the secret deal between Affinity and NNOC union officials, combined with the intimidation of nurses who spoke out against unionization, likely affected the outcome of the union organizing vote. The election was “officially” decided by 4 votes with an additional 7 votes contested.
After Affinity refused to accept the results of this tainted election, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Affinity demanding company management recognize union officials as the nurses’ monopoly bargaining agent. The NLRB’s General Counsel filed a complaint against Affinity seeking to grant NNOC union officials monopoly bargaining privileges over the nurses.
“Caught between union bosses and corporate executives, these nurses have been stripped of their rights to oppose forced unionism in their workplace,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Medical professionals shouldn’t be subjected to backroom deals that give union operatives preferential treatment at the expense of employees’ workplace rights.”
“The NLRB lawyer’s attempts to foist the union on these nurses highlights the sham the Board has made out of federal labor law, which is supposed to protect workers,” added Mix. “If anything, the NLRB should remove the illegitimate union from the nurses’ workplace.”
