Cleveland Probation Officer Challenges Years of Janus-Breaching Dues Seizures
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials covertly began seizing full dues after Janus decision, refuse to return money
CLEVELAND, OH – Cuyahoga County probation officer Kimberlee Warren is suing the Fraternal Order of Police Ohio Labor Council (FOP) union, charging union officials with breaching her First Amendment right as a public employee to refuse to support union activities. She is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Foundation staff attorneys contend that FOP union officials ignored her constitutional rights recognized in the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Justices declared it a First Amendment violation to force any public sector employee to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court also ruled that public employers and unions cannot take union dues or fees from a public sector employee unless they obtain that employee’s affirmative consent.
Warren was not an FOP union member, even before the Janus decision. However, her federal lawsuit details that astoundingly union officials furtively opted her into formal membership and full dues deductions from her paycheck after the Janus decision was issued, an event which should have prompted union officials to cease seizing all money from her.
FOP Union Bosses Brazenly Increased Forced-Dues Deductions After Janus
FOP union chiefs continued these surreptitious deductions until December 2020, Warren’s lawsuit notes, when she notified union officials that they were violating her First Amendment rights by taking the money and demanded that the union stop the coerced deductions and return all money that they had taken from her paycheck since the Janus decision.
When the deductions ended, FOP chiefs refused to give back the money that they had already seized from Warren in violation of her First Amendment rights. They claimed the deductions had appeared on her check stub and thus any responsibility to end the deductions fell on her — even though to her knowledge they had never obtained permission to opt her into membership or to take cash from her paycheck to begin with.
According to the lawsuit, Warren also asked FOP bosses to provide any dues deduction authorization document she might have signed. FOP officials rebuffed this request as well.
Union bosses were authorized by state law before the Janus ruling to seize from non-member workers’ paychecks only the part of dues they claim go toward “representational” activities. FOP union officials took this amount from Warren prior to Janus. However, their forcing her into membership afterward means they started taking full dues from her wages, even more money than they did before Janus despite the complete lack of consent.
Warren’s lawsuit seeks the return of all dues that FOP union officials garnished from her paycheck since the Janus decision was handed down.
Probation Officer Seeks Punitive Damages for Unchecked Janus Abuses
Her lawsuit also seeks punitive damages because FOP showed “reckless, callous” indifference toward her First Amendment rights by snubbing her refund requests.
“All over the country, union officials are stopping at nothing to ensure they can continue ignoring workers’ First Amendment Janus rights and continue siphoning money from the paychecks of dissenting employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “After Janus was handed down, FOP union officials in Warren’s workplace could have asked her to support the union voluntarily, but instead, tellingly, they began surreptitiously siphoning full dues out of her paycheck without her consent in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
ABC Cameraman Wins Ruling against CWA for Illegal Threats and Forced-Dues Demands
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Decisive victory comes as unanimous NLRB cites CWA union lawyers for misconduct
“It’s outrageous that just for trying to defend my basic freedoms I encountered fierce opposition from union bosses who claim to ‘represent’ me,” said Jeremy Brown.
PORTLAND, OR – ABC cameraman Jeremy Brown was pleased in December 2020 when a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in his favor that National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA) union officials had illegally seized full union dues from him despite the fact he is not a union member.
But that was not the only thing about which Brown had filed charges against the CWA union. The ALJ let CWA lawyers off the hook for sending him two harassing “evidence preservation” letters over the course of the litigation, which were intended to retaliate against Brown for standing up for his rights under federal law and absurdly ordered that he hold onto things like pedometer and GPS data.
This August, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Brown won a unanimous decision from the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., which affirmed the ALJ’s judgment on the illegality of the dues seizures but also went further to find that CWA lawyers were “willing to go to extreme — and perhaps harassing — lengths to penalize the Charging Party, placing the letters outside the bounds of legitimate efforts to ensure evidence preservation.”
CWA Union Bosses Stonewalled Cameraman’s Attempt to Invoke Beck Rights
Brown resumed regular work with ABC in 2016 after intermittent hires since 1999, at no point joining the union. A new president, Carrie Biggs-Adams, took over the local CWA union in late 2018 and sent Brown a series of letters in early 2019 which claimed that, as a condition of employment, he had to pay nearly $10,000 in initiation fees and “back-agency dues.”
Because Brown works primarily in states without Right to Work protections, he can be required to pay some fees to the union as a condition of employment.
Brown, who was unaware until 2019 that he was under the CWA union’s monopoly bargaining power, emailed Biggs-Adams in April 2019 asking for “clarification” about the fee demands. He also exercised his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision to object to paying union fees for any purpose other than core bargaining activities. Biggs-Adams ignored this request and several follow-ups by Brown, and notably never informed Brown about the union’s own rule that Beck objections must be mailed to the union’s national headquarters.
The ALJ’s December 2020 decision held that the CWA union violated Brown’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its officials’ omissions and the failure to reduce his dues. The ALJ ordered that the local union provide Brown with “a good faith determination of the reduced dues and fees objectors must pay,” “reimburse Brown for all dues and fees collected” beyond what is required by Beck with interest, and post notices informing the employees in Brown’s workplace of the decision.
“Not paying for union politics is my right, and it never should have been so difficult to exercise that right,” Brown told a Washington Free Beacon reporter about the NLRB decision. “While I’m thankful for this victory, it’s outrageous that just for trying to defend my basic freedoms I encountered fierce opposition from union bosses who claim to ‘represent’ me but don’t respect my rights.”
However, the ALJ did not uphold additional charges Brown filed challenging the union lawyers’ intimidating “evidence preservation” letters. Brown therefore requested review by the NLRB in Washington, which has now ruled that those letters were illegal harassment.
Union Lawyers Cited for Threatening Letters
In addition, the NLRB found the CWA lawyers “have not conformed their conduct to the standards of ethical and professional conduct required of practitioners appearing before the Agency.” Specifically, the Board found that the CWA lawyers engaged in unprofessional behavior by insulting Brown’s Foundation provided attorneys during the proceedings. The Board referred the union lawyers’ conduct “to the attention of the Investigating Officer for investigation and such disciplinary action as may be appropriate.”
“NABET officials and lawyers subjected Jeremy Brown to layers upon layers of union malfeasance and intimidation just because he exercised his right to remain a nonmember and didn’t want to pay for union bosses’ political expenditures,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “He courageously stood up for his rights for well over two years. We at the National Right to Work Foundation were proud to support him in a case in which his rights have now been fully vindicated.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
At Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas Police Officer Defends First Amendment Right to Stop Funding Unwanted Union
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.
Wesley Manor Workers Vote Overwhelmingly to Remove Unwanted AFSCME Union Officials from their Workplace
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.”
