Legal briefs filed for veteran officer rebut union attorneys’ arguments attempting to justify union dues seizures that violate clear Supreme Court precedent

Las Vegas, NV (April 22, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just filed the final brief in a Las Vegas police officer’s federal lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from union dues deductions. The case is now fully briefed and ready to be decided by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer Melodie DePierro is challenging an “escape period” enforced by officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union as an infringement of her constitutional rights recognized in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. DePierro ended her PPA membership in 2020.

The High Court in Janus ruled that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union hierarchy as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. It also declared that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.

DePierro’s Foundation staff attorneys argue in her reply brief that PPA union officials’ “escape period” policy, which forbids her for over 90% of the year from exercising her First Amendment right to cut off union dues deductions, is a blatant violation of Janus.

Further, Foundation attorneys point out that, even though DePierro was a union member years ago, she never consented to being controlled by the “escape period,” which union and police department officials added to the contract without her knowledge. The policy was also absent from the union membership card she signed.

“That a 20-day escape period restriction on employees’ right to revoke was added to a subsequent [contract] does not mean LVPPA can enforce such limitation without first seeking employees’ affirmative consent. DePierro’s First Amendment right against compelled speech and union subsidization would have been protected had LVPPA bothered to seek such consent from her in advance,” Foundation staff attorneys argue.

PPA Union Officials Try to Impose on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About

According to DePierro’s complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. Her response explains that in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions “at will.”

In January 2020 she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.

Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of a union-imposed “escape period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. Union agents rebuffed her again after she renewed her demands in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.

DePierro’s most recent filing in the case refutes a number of union arguments, notably contending that her past union membership did not give the union and police department free reign to create new restrictions on her rights. It also criticizes the lower court for ruling that it was “immaterial” that DePierro never consented to the restrictive revocation period.

“DePierro’s membership form is not a blank check for LVPPA and LVMPD to invent and impose new revocation restrictions against her will, resulting in the forceful seizure of hard-earned wages in violation of her First Amendment right not to bankroll a union,” the brief says.

Vegas Police Officer Seeks to Force Union to Return Dues Seized in Violation of Her Rights

DePierro demands that the U.S. Circuit Court declare the “escape period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues that were unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.

“The Supreme Court was perfectly clear in Janus that public employees must affirmatively waive their First Amendment rights before union bosses take dues from their wages,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That PPA union bosses are refusing to give back money they took in obvious violation of this standard is outrageous, and clearly shows that they value dues revenue over the rights of officers they claim to ‘represent’ – including distinguished veterans like Officer DePierro.”

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should uphold the correct interpretation of Janus. Foundation attorneys will keep fighting for Officer DePierro until her rights are vindicated,” Mix added.

Teamsters’ aggressive top-down organizing campaign includes boycott threat, seeks to impose union on workers without even a secret-ballot vote

Santa Rosa, CA (April 11, 2022) – Following multiple inquiries by Amy’s Kitchen employees, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued a special alert to California and Oregon employees of the vegetarian prepared food company, which is currently the subject of a top-down campaign by Teamsters Local 665 union officials to install union control.

The notice and offer of Foundation staff attorneys’ free legal aid come as Teamsters bosses and allied groups are using increasingly hostile tactics to attack the company, including calling for boycotts of Amy’s Kitchen products. News reports demonstrate many workers oppose the attacks on their employer and want nothing to do with Teamsters union officials.

This union attack strategy is a classic example of a Big Labor “corporate campaign,” in which, rather than seeking to win the voluntary support of workers in a secret-ballot vote, union organizers attack an employer with the goal of having the company assist in imposing the union on the workers, usually via a coercive “card check” scheme. Under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings, union officials armed with a “card check” deal can bypass the secret-ballot election process and gain power in a workplace simply by submitting untested “union cards” to the employer.

The Foundation’s special legal notice informs Amy’s Kitchen workers of their rights to resist affiliating with the Teamsters union, including that they cannot be required to sign any “union cards.” It further alerts workers that there is a long history of union agents using pressure tactics and misleading workers into signing such cards, and informs workers that should they witness such tactics they should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid.

The special alert also apprises Amy’s Kitchen employees of their right to sign counterpetitions expressing opposition to unionization that workers at the facility are currently circulating. Such counterpetitions make it clear workers oppose the Teamsters’ organizing campaign and the Teamster boss-led boycott of Amy’s Kitchen products. The legal notice informs workers that signing a counterpetition can assist in preventing the union from being imposed on them against their will and without a secret-ballot election.

The special alert in both English and Spanish and is available on the Foundation’s website: https://www.nrtw.org/amys-special-notice/ (in English) and https://www.nrtw.org/es/amys-special-notice/ (en español).

Biden Labor Board Targets Independent-Minded Workers

The legal notice comes as Jennifer Abruzzo, the former union lawyer who was installed by President Biden as the NLRB’s General Counsel, is advocating for radical changes to NLRB policies that would expand union bosses’ coercive “card check” powers.

Example after example shows employees are often unaware of the true purpose of “union cards” when pressured by union organizers to sign them. Workers frequently sign merely to get union organizers to leave them alone. In fact, an AFL-CIO organizing guide even admits that a “card check” drive supposedly demonstrating 75 percent support for a union among employees often only translates to a 50/50 chance in a secret-ballot election among the same workers because workers’ signatures made in the presence of one or multiple union agents frequently don’t reflect actual support for the union.

NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo has publicly said she wants to revive the controversial Joy Silk theory, which the NLRB and federal courts rejected a half century ago. Abruzzo seeks to mandate “card check” recognition even if an employer and many workers want the protection offered by a secret-ballot vote before workers are swept into union ranks. As General Counsel, Abruzzo has wide discretion to choose which cases come before the NLRB, and the situation at Amy’s Kitchen might serve as a vehicle for resurrecting Joy Silk.

“If Teamsters officials and their allies truly respected the free and un-coerced choice of the Amy’s Kitchen workers for whom they are claiming to speak, they would not be using such aggressive tactics to try to impose union control from the top down on workers,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Unfortunately, such tactics are being greenlighted by President Biden’s handpicked Big Labor cronies at the National Labor Relations Board, who in their effort to expand forced union dues ranks want to deprive workers of the protection against union intimidation tactics afforded by a secret-ballot vote.”

“Amy’s Kitchen workers who witness or are subjected to Teamsters organizers’ coercive tactics should not hesitate to contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” Mix added.