Tenth Circuit Slaps Teamster Union With Sanctions
Denver, CO (July 6, 2012) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (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 later caved in to the union bosses’ demand.
At Interstate Bakeries, seniority increases employees’ chances of securing desirable sales routes. By insisting that Rammage lose his seniority, Teamster officials effectively signaled that union workers took priority over their nonunion colleagues. As a result, Rammage was forced to commute to a new work location more than 70 miles away.
After Rammage filed federal charges against the union, the NLRB – a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law – ruled against the discriminatory Teamster-imposed policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s decision. Those rulings were later nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 on the ground that the Board lacked a three member quorum at the time of its decision.
The Tenth Circuit then remanded the case to the NLRB. Once the Board had a quorum, the NLRB revisited the facts of the case and again concluded that Teamster officials broke the law by discriminating against employees based on their union representation status.
The Tenth Circuit has now upheld the agency’s ruling again and slapped Teamster Local 523 with monetary sanctions for the frivolous nature of the union’s lawyers’ second appeal.
“Teamster bosses pulled out all the stops to protect their discrimination against workers who have the temerity not to associate with their union,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Teamster union bosses will now pay for discriminating against workers who exercise their unconditional right to refrain from union membership.”
School Bus Drivers Slam the Brakes on Shoddy Federal Settlement in Teamster Union Disclosure Case
School Bus Drivers Slam the Brakes on Shoddy Federal Settlement in Teamster Union Disclosure Case
Labor Board settlement lets scofflaw Teamster union off the hook
Long Island, NY (July 6, 2012) – A group of Lindenhurst, New York, school bus drivers have appealed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office’s proposed settlement of a federal charge filed against a local Teamster union.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Baumann & Sons Bus Company driver filed the charge for herself and at least four of her coworkers in late 2011 with the NLRB regional office in Brooklyn, after Teamsters Local Union 1205 officials refused to provide the workers with adequate information about the union’s financial expenditures as federal law requires.
The workers exercised their right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership upheld under a National Right to Work Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck.
School Bus Drivers Slam the Brakes on Shoddy Federal Settlement in Teamster Union Disclosure Case
Long Island, NY (July 6, 2012) – A group of Lindenhurst, New York, school bus drivers have appealed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office’s proposed settlement of a federal charge filed against a local Teamster union.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Baumann & Sons Bus Company driver filed the charge for herself and at least four of her coworkers in late 2011 with the NLRB regional office in Brooklyn, after Teamsters Local Union 1205 officials refused to provide the workers with adequate information about the union’s financial expenditures as federal law requires.
The workers exercised their right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership upheld under a National Right to Work Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck.
However, because New York does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, workers who refrain from formal union membership are still forced to pay part of union fees as a condition of employment. Nonmember workers cannot be required to pay union dues spent for union activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Teamster union bosses are further required to provide an independently-audited breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures.
The bus drivers won a federal settlement before the NLRB regional office requiring Local 1205 union officials to provide adequate disclosure and post notices in the workplace informing workers of their rights. However, the bus drivers are appealing the proposed settlement because it does not require Local 1205 union officials to provide substantial proof that the financial disclosure statements provided to the workers are independently-audited. Additionally, the notices the settlement requires will be posted during the summer months when the school district’s bus drivers do not work.
“The regional NLRB office is attempting to let Teamster Local 1205 union bosses off the hook by posting the notice when no one is looking and not forcing Teamster bosses to fully comply with the law,” said Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Ultimately, the best way to protect the rights of workers in the Empire State is for New York to pass a Right to Work law ending union officials’ power to have workers fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees and making union membership strictly voluntary.”
Twenty-three states have Right to Work protections for workers. Recent public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.
Union Bosses Forced to Settle Federal Charges After Illegally Levying Retaliatory $7,300 Strike Fine Against Worker
Union Bosses Forced to Settle Federal Charges After Illegally Levying Retaliatory $7,300 Strike Fine Against Worker
Worker fined for exercising his right to refrain from formal union membership
Kansas City, MO (July 3, 2012) – A Honeywell nuclear assembly worker has won a settlement from a local union for retaliating against him for exercising his right to refrain from union membership and continue to work during a union boss-instigated strike.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Daniel Gudde filed a federal charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Overland Park, Kansas after union officials levied a $7,361.36 fine against him.
Gudde began working at Honeywell in late September, believing he had to join the International Association of Machinist (IAM) Local Lodge 778 union. In early October, IAM Local 778 union officials instigated a strike. Gudde and three of his coworkers were unsure if they had to go on strike as union members or if they had to fulfill a required 30-day probationary period of employment.
Union officials told Gudde and his colleagues to continue to work to complete the 30-day probationary period.
Union Bosses Forced to Settle Federal Charges After Illegally Levying Retaliatory $7,300 Strike Fine Against Worker
Kansas City, MO (July 3, 2012) – A Honeywell nuclear assembly worker has won a settlement from a local union for retaliating against him for exercising his right to refrain from union membership and continue to work during a union boss-instigated strike.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Daniel Gudde filed a federal charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Overland Park, Kansas after union officials levied a $7,361.36 fine against him.
Gudde began working at Honeywell in late September, believing he had to join the International Association of Machinist (IAM) Local Lodge 778 union. In early October, IAM Local 778 union officials instigated a strike. Gudde and three of his coworkers were unsure if they had to go on strike as union members or if they had to fulfill a required 30-day probationary period of employment.
Union officials told Gudde and his colleagues to continue to work to complete the 30-day probationary period. After the probationary period, union bosses obligated Gudde and his coworkers to leave their jobs at the nuclear facility. Union members bound by the union’s constitution and bylaws can be fined for continuing to work during a strike.
After the 30-day period, Gudde learned of his right to resign from full dues paying union membership at any time. He notified the IAM union hierarchy that he was resigning from formal union membership when his 30-day period ended and then returned to work after a couple of days. Workers who refrain from union membership cannot be fined or otherwise disciplined for working during a strike. However, because Missouri does not have a Right to Work law, nonmember workers are still forced to pay a certain part of union dues and fees.
In mid-March, IAM union bosses fined Gudde. Moreover, three coworkers who did not resign from the union but also worked during the 30-day probation period were not fined, thus suggesting the fine was in retaliation for Gudde exercising his rights.
The settlement requires union officials to rescind the fines imposed on Gudde and other employees who worked with union authorization and post a notice in the workplace informing workers of their rights.
“Cynical IAM union bosses retaliated against a worker for exercising his rights to continue providing for himself and his family during a strike, even after they told him to keep working,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “These types of compulsory unionism injustices will continue to occur until Missouri passes Right to Work protections for its workers.”
Update: Supreme Court May Take Foundation Case Challenging SEIU Homecare Forced Unionism Scheme in Fall
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court took action in another case brought by Foundation staff attorneys. Instead of issuing an order granting or denying cert in the case, the High Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief in the case Harris v. Quinn. That request shows that the Justices are interested in the case.
The case stems from a legal challenge initiated by eight Illinois homecare providers with the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced (and now incarcerated) predecessor, Rod Blagojevich.
Quinn and Blagojevich issued executive orders aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. Under the Governors’ decrees, personal care providers are considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU’s forced dues-paying ranks.
The providers, including lead plaintiff Pam Harris (interviewed in the video above), are challenging the executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association.
The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case this Fall, after the U.S. Solicitor General files a brief.
For more information on the case, check out the Foundation’s Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation’s petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Flashback: The Union-Label Health Care Bill
With today’s United States Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, it’s worth revisiting the hidden privileges to Big Labor contained in the bill.
In August 2009, National Right to Work President Mark Mix wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the sweetheart deals for union bosses:
In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.
Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.
…
Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.
ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.
Read the rest of the op-ed here.
Worker Advocate Files Amicus Brief in Support of Idaho Ban on Discriminatory Project Labor Agreements
Worker Advocate Files Amicus Brief in Support of Idaho Ban on Discriminatory Project Labor Agreements
Union bosses seek to protect power to discriminate against nonunion workers
Boise, ID (June 27, 2012) – Staff attorneys from the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism have filed an amicus curie brief in support of an Idaho law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called project labor agreements (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed the brief today in federal appeals court.
The “Open Access to Work Act” prohibits Idaho and all state governmental units from entering into taxpayer-funded contracts that require union-only workers.
Two building and construction unions challenged the law in U.S. District Court. The lower court’s decision regarding the matter is now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Worker Advocate Files Amicus Brief in Support of Idaho Ban on Discriminatory Project Labor Agreements
Boise, ID (June 27, 2012) – Staff attorneys from the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism have filed an amicus curie brief in support of an Idaho law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called project labor agreements (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed the brief today in federal appeals court.
The “Open Access to Work Act” prohibits Idaho and all state governmental units from entering into taxpayer-funded contracts that require union-only workers.
Two building and construction unions challenged the law in U.S. District Court. The lower court’s decision regarding the matter is now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Last week, Foundation attorneys successfully overturned a Ninth Circuit of Appeals decision, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) violated the rights of nonunion state employees in the Knox case.
Foundation attorneys argue in their brief that not only does the Idaho law pass Constitutional muster under the U.S. Constitution, it also prevents state-sanctioned discrimination against the vast majority of construction workers who refrain from union membership.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 85 percent of America’s construction workers and 94 percent of Idaho’s workers refrain from formal union membership.
“The stats don’t lie, Idahoans’ choice regarding unionization is clear,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, union bosses are seeking a judicial bailout to stifle competition and protect their preferential treatment from pro-forced unionism public officials.”
Two other states have passed laws prohibiting union-only contracts from public projects – Iowa and Michigan. Michigan’s law is also being challenged before a federal appeals court.
Federal Agency to Prosecute SEIU and Local Hospital for Rigging Union Card Check ‘Vote’
Federal Agency to Prosecute SEIU and Local Hospital for Rigging Union Card Check ‘Vote’
Union organizers enter into corrupt agreement with hospital to force healthcare workers into union ranks using coercive card check tactics
Orange, California (June 27, 2012) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director in Los Angeles has authorized the issuance of a complaint against a major healthcare union and hospital officials for forcing workers to accept an unwanted union in the workplace.
With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Marlene Felter of Costa Mesa filed charges with the NLRB after Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Workers West officials and Chapman Medical Center colluded to illegally rig a union organizing “vote” to pave the way for the union to claim to “represent” the workers.
SEIU officials and Chapman Medical Center management entered into a backroom deal, known as a so-called “neutrality agreement,” in which company officials granted union operatives access to company facilities to conduct a coercive “card check” organizing campaign, and waived the right to have a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees wished to be unionized. Union organizers frequently use “card check” organizing tactics to bribe, browbeat, or cajole workers into forced-union-dues payments against their will.
