9 May 2022

Red Rock Casino Slot Technicians Blast Regional Labor Board Ruling Trapping Them Under Unpopular Union, Appeal Decision

Posted in News Releases

Employee vote to decertify union blocked based on allegations that have nothing to do with slot techs’ bargaining unit

Las Vegas, NV (May 9, 2022) – Red Rock Casino slot machine technician Jereme Barrios has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC, to reverse an NLRB Region’s decision which blocks his and his coworkers’ right to vote out a union that a majority of them have already expressed interest in removing. Barrios is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Barrios submitted a petition to the NLRB Region 28 in March asking the agency to conduct a union “decertification vote” amongst his fellow slot technicians whether to kick out International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 501 officials. The petition contained signatures of a large majority of his colleagues.

However, the Region did not schedule the vote as Barrios and his coworkers had asked. NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet instead ruled in April that largely unverified and unrelated allegations (also called “blocking charges”) union officials had made against management of Station Casinos, Red Rock’s parent company, blocked the technicians from exercising their right to vote whether to remove the union.

Barrios’ Request for Review argues that the Region’s decision is unfounded, and requests that the NLRB in Washington, DC, reverse it and allow them to have an immediate decertification vote.

Slot Tech’s Request for Review Criticizes Regional Labor Board Decision as “a Scattershot Mess”

Barrios’ Request for Review begins by explaining that, even if any of the union’s “blocking charges” have merit, the NLRB Regional Director was not adhering to Foundation-backed reforms in the rules regarding “blocking charges” that the NLRB formally adopted in 2020. Under the reforms, “blocking charges” generally do not stop employees from exercising their right to vote in a decertification election. Instead, the NLRB takes up any “blocking charges” surrounding an election after a vote tally has been released.

“The Regional Director ignored the current Election Rules and even refused to cite them,” Barrios’ Request for Review says.

Moreover, Barrios’ Foundation attorneys go even deeper and demonstrate that, even under the old election rules which would have allowed “blocking charges” to stall a decertification election, the union’s allegations against the employer are completely insufficient to block an employee vote.

Barrios’ attorneys show that the majority of the union’s accusations describe alleged employer malfeasance concerning bargaining units other than Barrios’. The Request for Review points out that, by the Region’s logic, “any employer’s unfair labor practice could block any decertification in any of its other units, no matter how remote.”

The remaining “blocking charges,” including an allegation that Red Rock management did not bargain with the union over COVID-19 protections, Barrios’ Request for Review explains, either do not reveal actual violations of federal labor law by Red Rock management or have no causal connection to Barrios and his colleagues’ desire to remove the union. Barrios’ brief notes that Red Rock officials already complied with a consent order regarding the dispute over COVID-19 protections and “likely remedied any violation that could conceivably block an election.”

Foundation Attorneys Aid Other Station Casinos Employees

The slot techs’ effort comes as Red Rock hospitality and foodservice staff, led by Foundation-backed employee Raynell Teske, are battling an order from a federal district court judge that forces them under the “representation” of Culinary Union bosses. The order was issued despite the fact that a majority of the hospitality and foodservice employees voted in a secret ballot election to reject union officials’ effort to install themselves at the casino.

Foundation attorneys also represent Palms Casino engineering worker Thomas Stallings and his coworkers in their decertification effort against IUOE and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) officials. As in Barrios’ case, Stallings’ attorneys argue that regional NLRB officials have left Stallings and his coworkers trapped under the monopoly control of an unpopular union despite the current NLRB rules regarding “blocking charges,” and despite the fact the accusations by union officials against their employer have little if anything to do with Stallings’ work unit.

“Las Vegas is now home to at least three instances where regional NLRB officials have reflexively indulged union boss requests to remain in power at workplaces where a clear majority of workers want the union gone,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Las Vegas is indeed ‘Sin City,’ if the sin is disrespecting workers’ fundamental right to choose freely whether or not union bosses should speak for them.”

“Foundation attorneys are proud to stand by these courageous workers, who are fighting not only union coercion but an NLRB Regional Director seemingly determined to undermine the rights of workers opposed to union affiliation,” Mix added.

9 May 2022

Worker Wins Additional $1,500 from Car Dealership in Federal Case for Illegal Firing at IAM Union Bosses’ Behest

Posted in News Releases

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.

4 May 2022

Northern PA Metal Worker Slams CWA Union with Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Union PAC Money from Wages

Posted in News Releases

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.

3 May 2022

South Jersey Bus Drivers Hit IFPTE Union with Federal Lawsuit Challenging Unconstitutional Dues Seizures from Wages

Posted in News Releases

Drivers tried to end dues deductions from paychecks in January 2022 in accordance with documents they signed, but union kept taking money

Camden, NJ (May 3, 2022) – A group of Camden-area drivers for the South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) is suing union officials in federal court for seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. The drivers are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The drivers argue that bosses of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 196 (IFPTE) union are violating their First Amendment rights recognized in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision.

In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. It also ruled that union officials can only deduct dues from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights. The plaintiffs, Tyron Foxworth, Doris Hamilton, Karen Burdett, Karen Hairston, Ted Lively, Arlene Gibson, and Stanley Burke say union officials continue to take dues from them over their objections and in violation of their legal rights recognized in the Janus decision.

The federal civil rights lawsuit says the drivers signed forms that said employees could request a stop to dues deductions, but that such a request wouldn’t be effective until either the January or July following the request. The lawsuit notes that currently union officials are ignoring those terms of the dues deduction card and continue to deduct money over the drivers’ objections.

IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About, Seized Their Money After Drivers Requested Stop

All of the plaintiffs submitted letters to SJTA officials between October and November 2021 requesting deductions for IFPTE dues cease, expecting the deductions to stop in January 2022. But, the lawsuit notes, “each Plaintiff had union dues seized from their wages after January 1, 2022 despite providing a notice of withdrawal prior to that date.”

The IFPTE’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA restricts workers’ dues revocation requests to only July, in contradiction to the cards the drivers signed. Union officials never informed the drivers of this restriction or asked for their consent to it.

Drivers Seek Return of Dues Union Seized Unconstitutionally

Foundation attorneys argue in Foxworth and his colleagues’ lawsuit that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022 without the workers’ consent, “violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.” The drivers seek to make union officials permanently stop deducting dues from their wages, and return all dues already taken from their paychecks illegally.

“IFPTE officials are demonstrating they clearly value union dues revenue over the rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’ Not only are those officials rebuffing clear notice from workers that they no longer want to support the union’s activities, but they’re enforcing a more restrictive dues policy about which workers had absolutely no knowledge,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Janus was unambiguous: A worker’s affirmative consent is required for any kind of dues deductions to occur. That standard was clearly not met here.”

“Foundation attorneys are proud to stand with public employees who fight for their First Amendment right to free association, even in the face of union coercion,” Mix added.

2 May 2022

Brockton Visiting Nurse Staff Petition to Remove Unwanted SEIU Officials from Workplace

Posted in News Releases

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.”

23 Apr 2022
22 Apr 2022

At Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas Police Officer Defends First Amendment Right to Stop Funding Unwanted Union

Posted in News Releases

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.

21 Apr 2022

UC Irvine Lab Assistant Beats CWA Bosses in Suit Fighting Anti-Janus Schemes

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Settlement secures full dues refund, ends phony photo ID restriction on Janus rights

Foundation President Mark Mix was quoted in a Los Angeles Times report on the filing of Amber Walker’s lawsuit, emphasizing how UC’s pro-union boss policies were designed to infringe on workers’ right to decide freely on union support.

IRVINE, CA – Just a few months after University of California Irvine lab assistant Amber Walker slammed them with a federal lawsuit, University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE-CWA) union officials have already backed off of defending schemes created to stop university employees from exercising their First Amendment right to stop union dues takings.

In November, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys won a settlement against UPTE officials requiring them to abandon their arrangement that required employees to provide a photo ID just to cut off unwanted union financial support. The settlement also made UPTE officials return to Walker dues they had seized from her wages under the scheme.

The lawsuit, filed by Foundation staff attorneys in August, challenged the use of a California statute that makes public employers completely subservient to union officials on dues issues. Union officials set up a system to stymie public employees’ right to stop dues payments that, according to Walker’s lawsuit, violated both due process and the First Amendment.

Lawsuit: Union Bosses Layered Two Schemes to Block Janus Rights

Walker sought to safeguard her First Amendment rights recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision. In Janus, the Court declared that forcing public sector workers to fund unions as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Justices also ruled that union dues can only be taken from a public employee with an affirmative and knowing waiver of that employee’s First Amendment right not to pay.

“Before pursuing a lawsuit against UPTE, I tried to voice my concerns to many different officials in the union organization,” Walker told a Los Angeles Times reporter. “Many just ignored my plea and one official even raised their voice and rudely hung up the phone in my face . . . I believe it should not have taken a lawsuit to make UPTE respect my constitutional rights.”

Walker’s lawsuit explained that she sent UPTE union bosses a letter in January 2021 exercising her right to end her union membership and all union dues deductions from her wages. Walker submitted this message within a short union created “escape period” imposed to limit when workers can revoke dues deductions. The union bosses still rebuffed her request, telling her she needed to mail them a copy of a photo ID to effectuate her revocation. The photo ID requirement, clearly adopted to frustrate workers’ attempts to exercise their constitutional rights, is mentioned nowhere on the dues deduction card Walker had signed to initiate dues payments.

By the time UPTE officials had informed Walker that her request to cut off dues was rejected for lack of photo ID, the “window period” they enforce had already elapsed. Had Walker not filed a lawsuit with free Foundation legal aid, UPTE officials likely would have continued siphoning money from her paycheck for at least another year until the arrival of the next “window period.”

Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in court, UPTE bosses backed down and chose to settle the lawsuit. The settlement requires UPTE officials to stop taking money from Walker’s paycheck and to refund any deductions they took after her initial attempt to exercise her Janus rights. They must also desist from enforcing the photo ID requirement.

The Foundation is aiding other public sector workers across the country in defending their First Amendment right to refuse union financial support.

Fight to Eliminate Pernicious Restrictions on Janus Continues at High Court

In October, Foundation staff attorneys filed two joint petitions urging the Supreme Court to take cases brought for Alaska, Oregon, and California public servants who are battling restrictive “escape period” schemes union bosses manipulated to stop them from opting out of supporting unwanted union activities (See Page 2).

“We at the Foundation are glad to have helped Ms. Walker reclaim dues that were illegally siphoned from her wages by UPTE union bosses, but hardworking public servants like Ms. Walker should not be forced to file federal lawsuits just to exercise their basic First Amendment rights of free association,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The fact that UPTE bosses backed so quickly off defending their own suspect behavior indicates that they apparently knew their schemes would not stand up to any serious constitutional scrutiny.”

19 Apr 2022

Wesley Manor Workers Vote Overwhelmingly to Remove Unwanted AFSCME Union Officials from their Workplace

Posted in News Releases

Workers free from unwanted union “representation” as Labor Board certifies decertification vote to toss union bosses

Frankfort, IN (April 19, 2022) – Healthcare workers at the Wesley Manor BHI retirement community in Frankfort, Indiana have won a decertification vote, and successfully removed the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 962 union from their workplace. The workers’ decertification petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 25 office in Indianapolis, IN with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The petition was filed by Robin Davis, an employee of Wesley Manor BHI. The request seeking to end AFSCME union officials’ monopoly bargaining powers at BHI was signed by about 50% of the workers in the bargaining unit, well over the legally required 30% needed to trigger an NLRB-conducted secret ballot vote whether to remove the union. The final decertification vote was 27-16 in favor of removing AFSCME union officials from the workplace. The vote was then certified by the NLRB after union officials’ time for filing objections to the election expired.

Indiana is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted workers in numerous successful decertification efforts across the nation, including for workers in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Delaware. 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.

“The Foundation is happy to have helped the workers at Wesley Manor to exercise their right to free themselves of a union they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No worker anywhere should be forced under the so-called ‘representation’ of a union they oppose, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist other workers wanting to hold a decertification election to oust a union they oppose and believe they would be better off without.”

16 Apr 2022

Tennessee Worker Takes LIUNA Bosses to Federal Court for Religious Discrimination

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

To justify forced dues union official sent ‘remedial church readings’ to employee, her priest

Dorothy Frame

Instead of just granting Dorothy Frame a religious accommodation as federal law requires, LIUNA union bosses disparaged her faith.

CLARKSVILLE, TN – Dorothy Frame, who works at a hospital at Tennessee’s Fort Campbell, asked for a federally required religious accommodation over two years ago so she didn’t have to pay dues to Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) bosses in her workplace. Since then, LIUNA union bosses have ridiculed her faith, seized dues from her wages even after she requested an accommodation, and refused to give back funds they took from her in violation of her rights.

Now, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Frame has hit LIUNA bosses with a federal lawsuit for violating her rights. Her lawsuit charges the union with religious discrimination for siphoning dues from her paycheck when union officials knew doing so violated her religious beliefs. The lawsuit also charges the union with religious harassment for threatening to fire her if she didn’t submit union dues in contradiction to her beliefs.

LIUNA Officials Brazenly Ridiculed Beliefs of Employee and Her Priest

Frame gave the union a letter in July 2019 requesting a religious accommodation, her lawsuit says. It included a message from her parish priest backing her position. Federal law prohibits union officials from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. Accommodations of religious objections to dues payment often consist of permitting a dissenting worker to instead contribute the dues amount to a mutually agreed upon charity.

Even though Tennessee is a Right to Work state, union officials claim that Fort Campbell is a “federal enclave” not subject to state law. Frame’s employer (J & J Worldwide Service) and LIUNA maintain a contract that forces workers to pay union dues to stay employed.

A response to Frame’s letter from a LIUNA lawyer came the following month, her lawsuit notes, attacking her accommodation request and demanding that she “prove that her beliefs ‘[]meet the standard for a “legitimate justification.”’” The union lawyer also claimed that Ms. Frame’s understanding of her faith was inferior to his own understanding of her faith and even closed the letter by “sending Ms. Frame — and her priest — remedial church readings.”

One of Frame’s attorneys sent a letter in reply demonstrating how the accommodation request conformed to various church teachings. Nonetheless, LIUNA bosses continued to take dues from Frame’s paycheck.

Frame then filed a discrimination charge against LIUNA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Even after EEOC proceedings and additional letters from her attorney demonstrating the union’s various forms of support for causes and ideas she objected to, Frame’s lawsuit explains, union officials still refused to accommodate her. LIUNA bosses also “refuse to return any money they collected from Ms. Frame” since she sought an accommodation.

Employee Seeks Damages for Emotional Pain Caused by Union Discrimination

Frame’s lawsuit asks that the court declare “she has the right to a religious accommodation that alleviates her obligation to join or support the Unions” and order that LIUNA return all money seized from her wages in violation of her religious beliefs, plus pay “damages for emotional pain, suffering, and mental anguish that she suffered because the Unions repeatedly challenged and disparaged her religious beliefs.”

Frame is a Catholic who staunchly opposes LIUNA union officials’ position on abortion. “Ms. Frame believes that abortion is a grave sin,” her lawsuit details. “She believes joining or financially supporting the Unions would make her complicit in that sin because she believes that the Unions support and promote abortion. Thus, she believes that any money the Unions collect from her makes her complicit in sin and violates her religious beliefs.”

“LIUNA officials have put their arrogance and callousness on full display by forcing Ms. Frame to choose between losing her job and severely compromising her religious beliefs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Denying an individual a simple religious accommodation clearly violates federal law, and Foundation attorneys will fight for Ms. Frame until she is accommodated.”

“Big Labor’s government-granted privilege to force fees out of workers as a job condition allowed this kind of abuse to happen — no American worker should be forced to subsidize unwanted union activities just to keep his or her job,” Mix added.