Casino Worker Challenges Order Installing Unwanted Union via ‘Card Check’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Ninth circuit panel signals willingness to end precedent allowing for imposition of union
NLRB officials stacked the deck against rank-and-file Red Rock Casino employees by imposing an unpopular union on them despite worker objections.
LAS VEGAS, NV – A large majority of the workers at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada voted “no” to unionization, but a federal district court judge ordered their employer to bargain with union officials anyway. Casino officials appealed, and Red Rock employee Raynell Teske supported their efforts to overturn the judge’s coercive order that overrides the choice workers made at the ballot box.
With free Foundation legal aid, Teske filed a brief arguing that the district judge had no reason to impose a union onto workers who had already soundly voted to reject it. A Ninth Circuit panel denied the initial appeal, but issued an unusual concurring opinion in which all three judges said they disagreed with that outcome, but were bound by Ninth Circuit precedent to uphold the district judge’s order.
Binding precedent can only be overturned through an en banc hearing before a larger Ninth Circuit panel. Red Rock lawyers filed for an en banc rehearing of their appeal. The court then ordered National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) lawyers defending the order to respond, another signal the judges may be willing to overturn this ridiculous precedent and rule in the workers’ favor. Teske filed a second amicus brief, urging the court to hear the case en banc.
Judge Overrides Workers’ Vote Against Union ‘Representation’
The situation at Red Rock began in December 2019, when the NLRB held a secret-ballot election on whether to unionize the Casino’s workers. Employees rejected union officials’ effort to become their monopoly bargaining “representatives” in an NLRB-supervised vote by a nearly 100-vote margin. Despite that outcome, NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet sought a federal court injunction imposing the union over the workers’ objections.
On July 20, 2021, District Judge Gloria Navarro agreed with the NLRB Director’s request, and ordered Red Rock to bargain with union officials despite the employees’ vote against unionization. The judge said the order was justified because union officials claimed that, before the vote, a majority of workers had signed union authorization cards.
Teske’s amicus briefs argue those “Card Check” signatures don’t prove that union officials ever had majority support. She contends the level of union support was tested fairly by the secret-ballot election, in which workers voted 627-534 against unionization.
Her briefs point out that the NLRB and federal courts have long recognized that secret ballots are a more reliable way of gauging worker support for a union, because workers are often pressured, harassed, or misled by union organizers into signing cards.
Union officials know that Card Check signatures do not indicate solid worker support. The AFL-CIO admitted in its internal organizing handbook that it needed at least 75% Card Check support before having even a 50-50 chance of winning a secret-ballot election. Union bosses prefer Card Check unionization because they can more easily take control of workplaces where they lack popular support, and partisan NLRB appointees now are working to grant their wish.
Partisan NLRB Pushes Unreliable ‘Card Check’
Past legislative attempts to enact Card Check unionization, including the so-called “PRO Act,” pending in the U.S. Senate right now, faced bipartisan opposition. However, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former high-ranking union lawyer, believes she can implement Card Check without congressional approval. Abruzzo has expressed interest in resurrecting a decades-old NLRB doctrine that allows unions to sue employers to try to force them to automatically bargain whenever the union possesses a pile of untested union cards.
“There is no reason why district court judges or NLRB bureaucrats should be able to override workers’ choice at the ballot box,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “A favorable ruling for Raynell Teske and her colleagues could provide legal ammunition for future workers if the NLRB tries to force them to accept union officials for whom they never even had a chance to vote.”
Boeing Technician Files Federal Lawsuit Against Machinists Union Over Illegal Forced Dues Demands
Instead of reducing nonmember worker’s payments in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, union bosses charged him arbitrary higher amount
Seattle, WA (May 24, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Seattle Boeing technician Don Zueger is suing International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials in federal court for violating his right to refrain from paying for unwanted union activities.
Zueger, who is not a member of the IAM union, is defending his right under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court ruled that union officials cannot charge full union dues to objecting private sector workers who have abstained from formal union membership. Under Beck, union officials can only charge union nonmembers “fees” which exclude expenses for things like union political activities.
Because Washington State lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, nonmembers like Zueger can be forced to pay the reduced amount under Beck as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
IAM Officials Continue to Overcharge Worker in Violation of His Rights
According to Zueger’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, he submitted a request to IAM union officials in February resigning his union membership and asking for his dues payments to be reduced under Beck.
Zueger’s lawsuit reports that IAM officials’ response to his Beck request claimed that, under IAM’s nationwide policy, the portion of union dues he is required to pay is based on averages of selected audits that in each case include nine other local and district IAM affiliates. This means the forced union fee amount is not calculated using the actual amounts determined in the audits of the local and district IAM affiliates that Zueger is required to fund as a condition of employment. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in Zueger’s dues reduction being significantly less than it would have been had union officials only used the audits for the district and local affiliates Zueger is forced to fund.
According to his lawsuit, union officials are still demanding from Zueger dues in excess of the amount Beck permits. The lawsuit seeks to force IAM union bosses to return all money demanded in violation of Beck and to properly reduce his future union payments in accordance with Beck.
Workers Should Be Wary of Illegal Union Dues Schemes as Union Political Activity Increases
Zueger’s lawsuit comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle. A report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own Department of Labor filings show about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 cycle, primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries. Moreover, other estimates strongly suggest that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities actually topped $12 billion in 2019-2020.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out when union officials are trying to strong-arm employees into subsidizing union activities, including politics, against their will. IAM officials’ nonmember dues scheme doesn’t pass the smell test,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re proud to help Mr. Zueger defend his Beck rights, ultimately no American worker should be forced to pay fees determined by the whims of union officials simply in order to keep their jobs.”
“This case shows why Right to Work laws are needed nationwide to ensure that the decision to join or financially support a union is strictly a matter of each individual worker’s own conscience. Workers should be especially aware of attempts by union officials to force them to fund union activities as union political activity heats up in advance of this year’s elections,” Mix added.
NYC University Professors Take Aim at Forced Union ‘Representation’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CUNY professors’ lawsuit argues NY law forces them under power of anti-Semitic union
Prof. Avraham Goldstein recalled in a Wall Street Journal piece the anti-Semitism his family faced in the Soviet Union. He and other plaintiffs argue they shouldn’t be forced to associate with a union that subjects them to similar hostility.
NEW YORK, NY – For decades, government sector union bosses have relied on two pillars of coercion — forced dues and forced representation — to maintain their grip on power over America’s public servants and the public services citizens rely on.
While the Supreme Court in the 2018 National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case recognized that forcing government employees to pay dues to stay employed violates the First Amendment, a new Foundation-assisted civil rights lawsuit from six City University of New York (CUNY) system professors may finally defeat union bosses’ privilege to impose union representation over the objections of public workers.
CUNY professors Jeffrey Lax, Michael Goldstein, Avraham Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, and Maria Pagano sued the AFL-CIO-affiliated Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY executives, and New York State officials in January, challenging New York State’s “Taylor Law” that gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in public sector workplaces like CUNY.
The plaintiffs, most of whom are Jewish, oppose the union’s “representation” on the grounds that union officials and adherents have relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity. Several of the plaintiffs exercised their Janus right to cut off dues after PSC officials rammed through a resolution in June 2021 that they found “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” according to the lawsuit.
Discrimination Cited in Groundbreaking First Amendment Case
The lawsuit, which was filed with legal aid from both the National Right to Work Foundation and Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, says: “Despite Plaintiffs’ resignations from membership in PSC, Defendants . . . acting in concert and under color of state law, force all Plaintiffs to continue to utilize PSC as their exclusive bargaining representative.”
The resolution is not nearly the worst example of PSC officials’ anti-Semitism, according to the lawsuit. Prof. Michael Goldstein asserts that adherents of PSC are waging a campaign to get him fired and have targeted him with harassment and threats such that he must have an armed guard accompany him on campus. Prof. Lax cites in the lawsuit a determination he has already received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that “PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.”
While all of the professors take issue with PSC bosses’ radicalism, they also want to break free from internal conflicts within the large and disparate unit, which consists of full-time, part-time, and adjunct teaching employees and others. Prof. Kass-Shraibman states in the lawsuit that “instead of prioritizing the pay of full-time faculty, PSC expended resources advocating on behalf of teachers in Peru, graduate students at various other universities and the so-called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement.”
On top of all that, Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert contend that PSC officials aren’t even respecting their First Amendment Janus rights. Although all three professors clearly indicated they wanted to cut off financial support to the union, the lawsuit explains that “Defendants PSC and the City . . . have taken and continue to take and/or have accepted and continue to accept union dues from [their] wages as a condition of employment . . .” in violation of Janus.
“I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity,” Prof. Avraham Goldstein wrote in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. “I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good.”
“I was wrong,” recounted Prof. Goldstein. “Union officials refused my resignation and continued taking union dues out of my paycheck.”
Suit Seeks Damages and to Overturn NY Law Authorizing Union Control
The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Taylor Law’s imposition of monopoly union control is unconstitutional, and that the defendants cease “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent.” The lawsuit also demands the union and university return dues seized in violation of Janus to Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert.
“By forcing these professors into a monopoly union collective against their will, the state of New York mandates that they associate with union officials and other union members who take positions that are deeply offensive to these professors’ most fundamental beliefs,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such unconscionable compulsion. It is time federal courts fully protect the rights of government employees to exercise their freedom to disassociate from an unwanted union, whether their objections are religious, cultural, financial, or otherwise.”
Orange County Lifeguards Push for Rehearing of First Amendment Challenge to Union Scheme Trapping Them in Union Membership
Restrictions will trap lifeguards in union membership and full dues payments for almost four years after they opted out of union
Orange County, CA (May 16, 2022) – California lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 22 colleagues are pressing for a rehearing of their federal civil rights lawsuit before an en banc panel of judges of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Savas and the others are suing the State of California and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) union for violating their and their coworkers’ First Amendment right to abstain from forced union membership and compelled financial support.
Savas and his colleagues are asserting their rights under the National Right to Work Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court declared that no public sector worker can be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments.
A so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement enforced by CSLEA union bosses and the State of California is forcing the lifeguards to both remain union members and supply full dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations on or around September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they have to remain full members until 2023. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas’ attorneys criticize the Ninth Circuit panel’s giving a pass to “maintenance of membership” requirements as contradicting Janus, and note that forcing dissenting employees to pay full union dues was unconstitutional even under Abood, the 1977 Supreme Court decision which Janus overruled. The lifeguards are receiving free legal representation from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Freedom Foundation, along with Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
“The Supreme Court recognized decades prior to Janus, in Abood, that it violates the First Amendment for government employers and unions to require dissenting employees pay full union dues…If maintenance of membership requirements could not survive constitutional scrutiny under Abood,” Savas’ attorneys argue, the requirements are definitely foreclosed by the higher level of First Amendment protection applied in Janus.
Savas’ en banc request also refutes the Ninth Circuit panel’s claim that the lifeguards somehow “contractually consented to the maintenance of membership requirement.” Savas’ attorneys point out that the dues deduction authorization form that the lifeguards signed only vaguely alluded to the presence of the “maintenance of membership” requirement in the union contract with their state employer, and never explicitly informed the lifeguards what that requirement was.
On that same point, Savas’ attorneys point out that “the panel’s contract-law analysis is wrongheaded because Janus requires a constitutional-waiver analysis.” Janus requires that employees voluntarily waive their First Amendment right not to make dues payments before such payments are extracted. Savas’ attorneys state “[t]here is no evidence the Lifeguards knew of their First Amendment rights under Janus or intelligently chose to waive those rights.” Indeed, many of the lifeguards could not have known about those rights because they signed the dues deduction authorization forms before the Supreme Court decided Janus.
“Even if such evidence existed, any purported waiver would be unenforceable…because a four-year prohibition on employees’ exercising their First Amendment rights under Janus is unconscionable,” Savas’ attorneys continue.
Ninth Circuit Panel Ruling Completely Inconsistent with Janus, Rehearing Required
“So-called ‘maintenance of membership’ requirements have been unconstitutional for decades, and it’s outrageous that courts have looked the other way and allowed CSLEA union bosses to infringe Savas’ and his fellow lifeguards’ First Amendment rights under the guise of such restrictions for so long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “A rehearing of Savas’ case is necessary so the plain meaning of Janus can be applied. Otherwise the Ninth Circuit will not only have ignored Janus, but turned back the clock over half a century on workers’ right to refrain from union membership.”
Federal Judge Rejects Attempt by TWU Union and Southwest to Thwart Flight Attendant’s Religious Discrimination Suit
Flight attendant’s case will go to trial at District Court in Dallas
Dallas, TX (May 10, 2022) – A federal judge has ruled that Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter’s federal lawsuit, in which she is suing Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556 officials and Southwest for illegally firing her over her religious opposition to abortion, will continue at the US District Court in Dallas. Carter is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
District Court Judge Brantley Starr ruled late last week denying the TWU union’s and Southwest Airlines’ motions for summary judgment, which would have given the union and airline an early victory in the case. Starr affirmed in the decision that the case must move to trial because “genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment” on all claims.
Flight Attendant Called Out Union Officials for Their Political Activities
As a Southwest employee, Carter joined TWU Local 556 in September 1996. A pro-life Christian, she resigned her membership in September 2013 after learning that her union dues were being used to promote social causes that violate her conscience and religious beliefs.
Carter resigned from union membership but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. State Right to Work laws do not protect her from forced union fees because airline and railway employees are covered by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA allows union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. But it does protect the rights of employees to remain nonmembers of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that Audrey Stone, the union president, and other TWU Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” which was sponsored by political groups she opposed, including Planned Parenthood. Carter’s lawsuit alleges that Southwest knew of the TWU Local 556 activities and participation in the Women’s March and helped accommodate TWU Local 556 members wishing to attend the March by allowing them to give their work shifts to other employees not attending that protest.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership and to express support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message affirming her commitment to both the recall effort and a National Right to Work law after union officials sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After sending Stone that email, Carter was notified by Southwest managers that they needed to have a mandatory meeting as soon as possible about “Facebook posts they had seen.” During this meeting, Southwest presented Carter screenshots of her pro-life posts and messages and questioned why she made them.
Carter explained her religious beliefs and opposition to the union’s political activities. Carter said that, by participating in the Women’s March, President Stone and TWU Local 556 members purported to be representing all Southwest flight attendants. Southwest authorities told Carter that President Stone claimed to be harassed by Carter’s messages. A week after this meeting, Southwest fired Carter.
In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit with help from Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the firing as an abuse of her rights, alleging she lost her job because of her religious beliefs, standing up to TWU Local 556 officials, and criticizing the union’s political activities and how it spent employees’ dues and fees.
Federal Judge: Flight Attendant’s Claims Against Southwest and Union Should Go to Trial
Notably, the District Court’s decision tosses arguments made by Southwest’s lawyers that Carter lacks a “private right of action” to enforce her fights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and arguments that her case concerned only a “minor” dispute over interpretation of the union contract that is outside the purview of the District Court.
The District Court’s ruling instead recognizes that the RLA’s explicit protection for employees’ free association rights means that Carter, who was fired for opposing the union based on its politics, “does have a private right of action” under the RLA.
The District Court re-affirmed its prior ruling that classifying the suit as a “minor dispute” is inappropriate, because “Carter had plausibly alleged that she engaged in protected speech and activity” and those claims “do not rest on and require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.”.
“[H]aving determined that Carter has a private right of action under [the RLA] and that this case concerns a major dispute,” the court ruled that a genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment on this claim.
The decision also rejects an argument by Southwest and the union that the District Court is bound by an arbitrator’s findings. Such “issue preclusion” is inappropriate in this case because, while arbitrators are competent to resolve factual questions, they are “not competent to resolve the ultimate legal questions of a case,” the decision says.
“This decision is an important step towards long overdue justice for Charlene. The ruling rejects several attempts by Southwest and union officials to deny Ms. Carter’s right to bring this case in federal court and enforce her RLA-protected speech and association rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Further, the decision acknowledges that, at its core, this case is about an individual worker’s right to object to how forced union dues and fees are spent by union officials to take positions that are completely contrary to the beliefs of many workers forced under the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
“The Foundation is proud to stand with Charlene Carter and will continue fighting for her rights for as long as is necessary,” Mix added.
Worker Wins Additional $1,500 from Car Dealership in Federal Case for Illegal Firing at IAM Union Bosses’ Behest
IAM officials already paid nearly $17,000 for union role in Robert Basil Buick GMC employee’s illegal termination for refusal to join union and pay full dues
Buffalo, NY (May 9, 2022) – In March 2022, after car dealership employee Remmington Duk filed federal charges against International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Automotive (IAM) Lodge 447, union officials agreed to pay him $16,916. Mr. Duk now has also won a settlement from Robert Basil Buick GMC for $1,500 for firing him at the IAM union officials’ behest because he exercised his right not to be a union member. Both unfair labor practice charges were filed for Mr. Duk with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.
Mr. Duk’s charges were filed on January 31, 2022, with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicates disputes among private sector employers, unions, and individual employees. The charges recited that on October 7, 2021, an IAM official demanded that Mr. Duk sign paperwork authorizing union membership, threatening that he would be fired if he declined. Mr. Duk refused to sign and Robert Basil Buick GMC then terminated him on October 12, 2021.
Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force them to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, under Communications Workers v. Beck, a U.S. Supreme Court decision won by Foundation staff attorneys, formal union membership cannot be required, nor can payment of the part of dues used for non-bargaining expenditures like union political activities. In contrast, in the 27 states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
To make Mr. Duk’s federal unfair labor practice charge go away, the IAM union not only paid him $16,916, but also posted a notice in his workplace for a 60 day period informing other workers of their right not to be union members, and agreed to inform future new employees of that right. A similar notice will be posted by Mr. Duk’s employer, per the new settlement’s terms.
“National Right to Work attorneys will continue to defend workers who are threatened by union officials for exercising their rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Employers who carry out unlawful orders at the bidding of union officials will similarly be held accountable by Foundation attorneys providing free legal representation to the victims of such schemes.”
“Ultimately, this case shows why New York workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to make all union payments strictly voluntary,” Mix added.
Northern PA Metal Worker Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Union PAC Money from Wages
CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation, case comes as former CWA official Jennifer Abruzzo is top labor board prosecutor
Galeton, PA (May 4, 2022) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, just hit a Communications Workers of America (CWA) union local with federal charges for seizing dues money from his paycheck illegally, plus money for CWA’s political action committee (PAC). He is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Foundation attorneys filed Coates’ charges at Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Pittsburgh. Coates’ charges come as NLRB General Counsel and former CWA attorney Jennifer Abruzzo has expressed support for a number of policies giving union officials greater power to sweep workers into dues-paying union ranks, even without a vote. Foundation attorneys also requested last year that Abruzzo recuse herself from a case involving an Oregon ABC cameraman who accused another CWA local of demanding illegal dues from him, including dues for politics.
CWA Union Bosses Siphoned Political Contributions, Dues from Worker – and Forced Him to Remain Shop Steward
Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. The charge says a union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
In December 2021 and January and February of 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages, what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization, and that contributions to the union’s PAC immediately stop being taken from his paycheck.
“To date, the Union has not responded…and dues and contributions continue to be deducted from his wages,” the charge reads.
Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, so unions can legally force them to pay union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions. Additionally, under federal election law, union officials can never force workers to contribute to a union’s PAC.
In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
Coates’ charge asserts that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.
Coates seeks the return of all money the union took from his paycheck in violation of his rights, and for PAC contributions to cease.
Foundation President: NLRB GC – a Former CWA Union Official – Should Not Get Involved in Case
“CWA officials are brazenly ignoring Mr. Coates’ right to refrain from union activates, so they can continue seizing his money not only for unwanted union activities but also for the increasingly radical politics of DC-based CWA operatives,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The union bosses’ arrogant attitude toward independent-minded workers is mirrored perfectly by NLRB GC Jennifer Abruzzo, who up until recently was also a top, DC-based CWA lawyer and has a track record of stacking the deck against workers who don’t toe the union line.”
“The obvious violations of federal law described in Mr. Coates’ case should make this a quick victory for him. Any meddling in this case by Abruzzo for her former employer will be met with a swift response from Foundation attorneys,” Mix added.
Brockton Visiting Nurse Staff Petition to Remove Unwanted SEIU Officials from Workplace
Mail-in ballots must be returned by close of business on June 2, 2022
Brockton, MA – Home healthcare staff at Brockton Visiting Nurse in Brockton, Massachusetts have filed a petition seeking the removal of Service Employees International Union Local 1199 from their workplace. The workers’ decertification petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 1 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Brockton Visiting Nurse employee Ann Pircio filed the decertification petition for her coworkers who want to oust the disliked union. Massachusetts is not a Right to Work state, meaning all workers in a unionized workplace can legally be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. If the workers’ vote is upheld by the NLRB, SEIU union officials will be stripped of their monopoly “representation” powers used to impose forced union dues.
Under federal law, when at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit sign a petition seeking the removal of union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers, an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union is triggered. If a majority of workers casting valid ballots do not vote for the union, the union is stripped of its government-granted monopoly “representation” powers. Those powers let union officials impose contracts on all workers in the workplace, even workers who are not union members and oppose the union.
The election for Brockton Visiting Nurse staff is scheduled as a mail-in vote. All ballots will be mailed by the NLRB to eligible voters who must mail back their votes. Workers’ votes must arrive by close of business on June 2, 2022, to be counted.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted workers in numerous successful decertification efforts across the nation, including for workers in Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey. Foundation-backed reforms to the rules for decertification elections that the NLRB adopted in 2020 have curtailed union officials’ abuse of so-called “blocking charges” used to delay or block workers from exercising their right to decertify a union. Such charges are often based on unproven allegations made against an employer, completely unrelated to workers’ desire to free themselves of the union.
“Workers everywhere should know they can turn to the Foundation for free legal aid to help enforce their right to free themselves from unwanted union so-called ‘representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No matter the outcome of this decertification vote, the many workers at Brockton who are opposed to the union should never have been required to fund the activities of union officials with whom they want nothing to do. That is why Massachusetts workers deserve the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union financial support strictly voluntary.”
