Washington Nurse Hits Union with Unfair Labor Practice Charge for Illegal Forced Dues Demands
Grocery union officials violate the rights of nonmember nurses with “opt-out” scheme of the kind that was held unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court
Seattle, WA (December 18, 2018) – A labor union best known for representing grocery butchers is facing federal charges from a Bellingham, Washington nurse who says United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union bosses are butchering her legal rights.
Nurse Diana Miller, who works at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett in Washington State, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Miller lives in Bellingham and works in Everett, both of which are located outside of Seattle, Washington, where the charge was filed.
Miller’s charge says UFCW Local 21 union officials violated her rights by unlawfully requiring that she “opt out” of paying full union dues instead of asking her to opt in.
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME case – argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys earlier this year – the court ruled that union schemes that require workers who are nonmembers to opt out of dues payments violates the First Amendment. Miller’s charge states that UFCW union officials are violating her rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) by imposing an opt-out requirement.
In addition, UFCW union officials failed to adequately inform Miller of her rights to pay less than full dues as a nonmember, unlawfully added “reinstatement” penalties on top of illegally demanded full union dues, and refused to provide any audited financial disclosure about the union’s political and other non-bargaining activities.
Repeatedly over the course of six months, Miller informed union officials that she was not a union member and wished to exercise her legal right not to pay full union membership dues. However, union officials continued sending Miller threatening bills and demanding that she pay full membership dues.
Miller charged the union with violating her rights under the NLRA by compelling her into participating in union activity, despite her legal right to choose to refrain from doing so.
“There is simply no legal justification for requiring workers to opt out twice: first from union membership and then again from subsidizing union spending on politics and lobbying,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should promptly prosecute union officials who use such schemes to compel nonmember workers to pay full dues in violation of clearly established legal rights.”
“Nurses like Diana and other medical professionals should be allowed to do their jobs, caring for sick and injured patients, free from coercive tactics by union bosses,” continued Mix. “This case shows why Washington State workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to stop these legal games and ensure all union payments are strictly voluntary.”
U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Case Challenging Forced Union Affiliation as Violation of First Amendment
Minnesota home-based personal care providers argue being forced under SEIU union monopoly ‘representation’ violates their freedom to associate
Washington, D.C. (December 13, 2018) – Today, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Minnesota home-based home care providers filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case challenging a Minnesota state law used to force tens of thousands of home care providers under union monopoly “representation.” The providers, who work at home caring for disabled family members as part of a state-run Medicaid program, oppose union affiliation.
The case’s lead plaintiff, Teri Bierman, filed the suit with seven other home care providers to challenge a 2013 Minnesota state law used by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Minnesota to force home care providers to associate with it as a condition of providing care under the state Medicaid program.
Teri Bierman and the other home care providers provide critical care to their family members who receive state assistance to help pay for their care. Bierman provides care at home for her daughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy and requires care throughout the day. The other plaintiffs in the case care for children diagnosed with severe autism, epilepsy, Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, or other significant disabilities. Like the other plaintiffs, Bierman receives aid from a Minnesota program similar to Medicaid, which provides funds to families to care for disabled relatives.
On August 27, 2014, the SEIU “won” a controversial mail-in unionization vote for Minnesota caregivers. Even though only 13 percent of the state’s 27,000 home care providers indicated support for SEIU affiliation, that was enough for the state to impose the union’s monopoly representation onto every provider, because of the small number of ballots returned. Caregivers who didn’t vote or voted against the union were then forced to accept the SEIU’s “representation.”
Bierman v. Dayton asks the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free association guarantee the unions’ monopoly bargaining privileges, by which a union forces its representation on individuals receiving state funds who do not consent to the representation.
By asking the Court to declare monopoly bargaining a violation of the First Amendment, Foundation staff attorneys seek to build off two recent Foundation-won Supreme Court decisions. In the 2014 Harris v. Quinn decision, the Court applied exacting First Amendment scrutiny to rule that providers like the Bierman plaintiffs cannot be required to pay union fees.
Next, in the June 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Court declared that forced union fees for all public sector employees violate the First Amendment and opened the door to further cases seeking to uphold workers’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court that “designating a union as the employees’ exclusive representative substantially restricts the rights of individual employees.”
Both Harris and Janus were argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, who is also the lead attorney in Bierman v. Dayton. Bierman now asks the Supreme Court, for the first time, to apply the same First Amendment standard to forced association as it has already applied to forced subsidies of union speech.
“If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Bierman, these home care providers will be one step closer toward ending an unconstitutional scheme that forces them to associate with a union they oppose as a condition of state assistance in providing care for their sons and daughters,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Forcing individuals under union monopoly representation flies in the face of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. This case gives the High Court the opportunity to apply to Big Labor’s coercive exclusive representation powers the legal standards it laid out in Janus and Harris.”
Cal State Professor Files Class Action Lawsuit to Reclaim Forced Union Fees under Janus Precedent
Lawsuit seeks return under Janus precedent of all fees seized from nonmembers by California Faculty Association union officials
Sacramento, CA (December 10, 2018) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have filed a federal class action lawsuit for a California professor to reclaim union fees California Faculty Association (CFA) officials unconstitutionally seized from him and similarly situated employees. The class action complaint potentially includes thousands of affected individuals and seeks to enforce the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees for public sector employees.
William D. Brice, a professor at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSU), filed the complaint against the CFA. The complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claims that by forcing Brice and other public sector workers under the monopoly bargaining representation of CFA to pay union fees without their affirmative consent, CFA union officials violated their First Amendment rights as protected by the Janus precedent.
Brice exercised his right to resign his membership in CFA around November 2014. However, he and other union nonmembers were forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment under state law. California’s law requires CSU to deduct union fees from nonmembers’ wages and transfer them to CFA.
In the Foundation-won Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision on June 27, 2018, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to require government workers to pay any union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Additionally, the Court clarified that no union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to financially support a labor union.
In the class action lawsuit, Brice claims that CFA union officials violated his and other nonmembers’ rights under the Janus decision by compelling them to subsidize the union and automatically seizing fees without their clear consent. He asks that the statutes that compelled nonmembers to pay union fees to CFA as a condition of employment be declared unconstitutional.
The complaint requests that the court certify a class that includes all individuals who at any time within the applicable limitations period were forced to pay union fees to CFA without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights, so they can all receive refunds of the money taken from them in violation of their constitutional rights.
“Independent-minded workers are standing up for their rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In the Foundation-won Janus decision, the Supreme Court finally upheld public sector workers’ First Amendment right to choose whether or not to support a union without the threat of being fired. Further, the High Court made it clear that fees cannot be collected without a clear waiver of First Amendment rights, something the CFA never received from Professor Brice and his colleagues, which is why the complaint seeks refunds of millions of dollars of fees seized in recent years.”
The Foundation has created a special website, MyJanusRights.org, to assist public employees in exercising their rights under Janus, which was successfully argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger.
Michigan Right to Work Enforcement: 6 Years and More Than 100 Cases Later
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2018 edition.
Foundation legal action still critical to enforcing Wolverine State Right to Work Laws
Foundation staff attorneys represent a number of Michigan workers, including public school teacher Susan Junak, defending their rights under the state’s Right to Work laws.
MICHIGAN – Since the 2012 passage of Right to Work legislation in the Wolverine State, Foundation staff attorneys have provided free legal assistance to Michigan workers in more than a hundred cases. With 41 ongoing cases and another 61 closed as of the publication of this article, Michigan cases continue to make up a disproportionate amount of the Foundation’s caseload of approximately 220-230 active cases at any given time. Developments in Foundation legal cases in recent months show that despite dozens of victories for workers, Michigan union bosses continue to attempt to force workers to pay dues despite the Right to Work laws.
After Michigan’s Right to Work Law covering government employees went into effect, school district employees Ryan Woodward and Susan Junak each attempted to exercise their rights under the law by submitting union membership resignations and dues check-off authorization revocations to the Michigan Education Association (MEA) union, only to have their dues revocations ignored. Indeed, MEA officials threatened to collect the dues with lawsuits.
With free legal representation from Foundation staff attorneys, Woodward and Junak won settlements from the MEA. Both settlements require the MEA to end attempts to collect the dues from the two workers. In addition, the union is required to take steps to repair the workers’ credit, if it had been damaged by the union bosses’ attempts to collect the supposedly-owed dues via collection agencies.
Another Foundation Right to Work enforcement victory was won for plaintiff Gordon Alger against Teamsters Local 214. Alger, a building maintenance worker, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) when the Teamsters union continued to deduct dues from his paycheck after he revoked his deduction authorization. Rather than be prosecuted, Teamsters officials agreed to refund about $300 that was taken from Mr. Alger in violation of his rights under Michigan’s Right to Work protections.
Despite Michigan union bosses repeatedly being caught trying to illegally extort forced dues from workers, one recently filed case further shows that union officials in the state continue to violate the rights of independent-minded Michigan employees.
On September 6, two EMTs in Flint filed a class action lawsuit in Michigan state court against United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 708 and their employer to enforce their rights under the state Right to Work law making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary. Foundation staff attorneys helped the workers file the lawsuit, which seeks refunds of over $25,000 in illegally seized union dues and fees.
The lawsuit asks for injunctive relief and the return of three years of dues and fees that were collected by UAW officials in violation of Michigan’s private sector Right to Work Law. In addition to the illegal forced dues, the workers were required to be dues-paying members of the UAW – in violation of the law.
UAW bosses weren’t the only Michigan labor officials on the receiving end of Foundation litigation brought in September for a worker seeking to exercise his or her rights under the state’s Right to Work law.
Days after the lawsuit against the UAW was filed, Rite Aid employee Kolby Klopfenstein-Snyder hit United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 951 with a federal unfair labor practice charge for illegal dues seizures. Klopfenstein-Snyder exercised her rights under Michigan’s Right to Work Law by resigning her union membership only to have union officials refuse to stop seizing union dues.
Her charge, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), says UFCW officials are violating her rights by continuing to take her dues, even though the union’s own dues deduction card does not authorize the taking of dues from non-members.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, UFCW Local 951 officials are no strangers to violating workers’ freedom of choice protected under the Right to Work law. In 2015, Foundation staff attorneys assisted Laura Fries after she was threatened with the loss of her job by UFCW officials. When she brought the case before the NLRB, which issued a complaint against the union, UFCW officials quickly backed down and reached a settlement.
“Unfortunately for the workers Big Labor claims to represent, Michigan union bosses show no signs of voluntarily complying with Michigan’s popular Right to Work Laws and seeking to earn workers’ support voluntarily,” said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “As demonstrated by the more than 100 cases filed in Michigan since Right to Work was enacted there, the Foundation’s legal aid program remains vital to protect workers from being forced to fund a union they oppose.”
Foundation Attorneys Win Janus Refunds for Minnesota Court Employees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2018 edition.
Teamsters officials forced to return every dollar of fees seized, plus interest
Elizabeth Zeien (left) and Carrie Keller were forced into union ranks and compelled to pay union fees. Thanks to Janus, the two Minnesota state workers have won refunds of their hard-earned money.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – Two more workers have received refunds of unconstitutionally seized union fees under the Janus precedent. After being forced into union ranks and required to support a union they oppose, Carrie Keller and Elizabeth Zeien have won a settlement against Teamsters union officials for violating their First Amendment rights.
The refund is a result of the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that no public sector worker can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
Now that union officials have settled their lawsuit, Keller and Zeien are the second and third public sector employees to win refunds in lawsuits under the new Janus precedent of unconstitutionally seized union fees.
Neither Keller nor Zeien, employees of the State of Minnesota Court System, was a union member when they started working at the court. They both negotiated their own terms and conditions of employment and salaries free from union interference.
In 2015, Teamsters Local 320 union officials started proceedings to force a number of state employees who were not in monopoly bargaining units into union ranks, in which they could be required to pay union dues and fees.
In March 2017, Minnesota state officials gave in to the Teamsters’ demands and added a number of employees, including Keller and Zeien, to a Teamsters-controlled bargaining unit. The workers were never given a vote on whether they wanted to be part of the union bargaining unit.
The pay scales and benefits Keller and Zeien had as unrepresented employees – and were forced to give up – equaled or exceeded what they now received under the union-mandated contract. To add insult to injury, the two workers were forced to pay compulsory union fees for this unwanted “representation.”
To challenge the forced unionization scheme, the two workers came to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid in filing a lawsuit.
In the Foundation-won Janus ruling, issued on the last day of its term on June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to force government employees to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also clarified that no union dues or fees can be taken from workers without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to financially support a labor union.
Deciding to settle the lawsuit after the Janus decision, Teamsters union officials were obligated to refund Keller and Zeien the entirety of the unconstitutionally seized union dues plus interest. No further union dues or fees will be collected from the workers’ wages unless either affirmatively chooses to become a union member and authorizes deductions.
Keller and Zeien join Debora Nearman as the first three government employees who, with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, have received their hard-earned money back under Janus. In July, SEIU officials settled with Nearman to return nearly $3,000 in forced-fees refunds.
“These workers are among the first of millions of government employees to finally receive justice for the violation of their rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “The Foundation will continue to hold union officials accountable when they attempt to force workers into unconstitutional forced-fees schemes.”
New Jersey Teachers Expose Forced Unionism Scheme as “Un-American”
Two New Jersey teachers are challenging a state law that they called out as “un-American” during a recent television interview.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision in June declared that public employees should be allowed resign their union membership and stop paying union dues whenever they choose. But union officials blocked teachers Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck from doing just that.
Fischer and Speck recently filed a class action lawsuit, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, after school district officials in the Township of Ocean refused to allow them to stop paying union membership dues.
During an interview with NJTV, a PBS affiliate based in New Jersey, Fischer clarified that she is not opposed unions. Instead, Fischer said that she and Speck filed their lawsuit out of a sense of basic fairness.
“I am not anti-union. I am a team player. I’ve been a teacher for 30 years,” Fischer explained. She later added: “You have to pay if you join and pay if you don’t join. That was so un-American to us.”
School district officials had claimed that the teachers could only stop payments and withdraw during a 10-day “window period” every year.
Foundation staff attorney William Messenger explained that this “window period” scheme was allowed under a New Jersey law. Messenger said this “basically means for 355 to 356 days of every year, public employees in New Jersey can’t exercise their Janus rights.”
The lawsuit challenges the New Jersey law as unconstitutional under Janus. The High Court said that union bosses cannot force public-sector workers to pay union membership dues and fees, since this violates the First Amendment.
The teachers are suing New Jersey Governor Phil Murphey, the New Jersey Education Association, and the Township of Ocean Education Association, seeking a refund of membership dues forcibly taken after they resigned their union membership, as well as for all other public employees who attempted to resign following Janus.
Appeals Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Washington Scheme Forcing Childcare Providers under Union “Representation”
Self-employed childcare providers are forced to associate with SEIU just to take care of low income children whose care is subsidized by the state
Seattle, WA (December 3, 2018) – Today, a National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney will deliver arguments for a Washington childcare provider in Mentele v. Inslee, a case challenging forced union representation for businesses providing childcare to low-income families. The case will be argued before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington.
In the case, plaintiff Katherine Miller asks the court to strike down a state requirement that she accept Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925 as her monopoly representative. She argues the requirement violates her First Amendment right to freedom of association, citing the First Amendment standard laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in two National Right to Work Foundation-won decisions, Harris v. Quinn (2014) and Janus v. AFSCME decided in June.
Miller is jointly represented by staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Northwest-based Freedom Foundation. Right to Work Foundation staff attorney Milton Chappell will argue the case before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit.
Washington state statute provides childcare subsidies to about 7,000 low-income families in Washington. Childcare providers, including self-employed individuals and small business owners, are classified as “public employees” to force them under the SEIU’s monopoly representation. Originally, childcare providers were forced to fund union activity. The Harris decision struck down the forced fee requirement, but now Miller – who provides childcare for low-wage families that qualify for subsidies – is asking the court to strike down forced representation as well.
Foundation staff attorneys have brought lawsuits for individuals in other states subject to similar forced unionism schemes, including the Bierman v. Dayton case filed for a group of Minnesota homecare providers also forced under SEIU monopoly representation. Following a Court of Appeals ruling earlier this year, a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review Bierman is expected to be filed by a December 17 deadline.
“This case and others show what lengths union bosses will go to impose their forced unionism onto workers, even going so far as to classify thousands of self-employed workers and small business owners as ‘government employees,’ subject to their representation,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation who is in Seattle for the arguments. “Although forced dues represent the most visible injustice of compulsory unionism, the root of Big Labor’s coercive powers has always been union officials’ ability to force individuals under the union monopoly against their will. It’s long past time that courts apply the First Amendment to these forced representation schemes and strike them down to protect the freedom of association.”
Immediately after the Mentele case is argued, the court will hear arguments in Fisk v. Inslee, another case jointly litigated by National Right to Work Foundation and Freedom Foundation attorneys. That case seeks to stop SEIU officials from continuing to collect union dues from Washington providers without their consent, and argues that such dues seizures violate the Supreme Court’s recent Janus ruling prohibiting mandatory union payments.
NLRB Urged to Use Rulemaking to Eliminate All Board-Created Policies that Block Workers from Ousting Unwanted Unions
National Right to Work Foundation letter asks Board to address all non-statutory “bars” to decertification votes that trap workers in unions that lack majority support
Washington, DC (December 3, 2018) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation submitted a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to expand the scope of upcoming rulemaking to address several Board-invented doctrines that block employees from exercising their right to vote whether to remove union representation under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
According to statements Board Members recently made at an American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Conference in San Francisco, the NLRB intends to use rulemaking this winter to address two policies that restrict workers’ right to vote out union officials’ unwanted representation: the “blocking charge” policy and the “voluntary recognition bar” doctrine.
The letter from Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse recognizes that the Board’s decision to address those two policies that have restricted workers’ rights for years is a good first step. However, it adds that Foundation staff attorneys believe that the Board should address all “bars” and “blocks” on employees’ right to hold elections to remove unwanted union representation which are not established by the NLRA itself, because they improperly obstruct employees from exercising their free choice rights guaranteed by that statute.
“Blocking charge” policies allow union officials to file unfair labor practice charges to block employees’ petitions to decertify unions, even when a majority of unit employees sign a petition. The “voluntary recognition bar” rule prevents workers’ attempts to hold secret ballot votes to decertify a union for at least a year, and potentially up to four years, after union officials force workers into union representation via a coercive card check drive.
The letter urges the Board to also address all of the other doctrines created by past Board Members that restrict workers’ right to hold decertification elections, highlighting three other “bars” that should be eliminated. The “successor bar” blocks workers from decertifying a union for an indefinite amount of time after the previous employer has been replaced by a successor. The “settlement bar” rule prevents workers from removing an unwanted union after a settlement agreement between a union and their employer. The “contract bar” restricts when workers can file decertification petitions to a narrow window of time that may occur only once in three years.
As the letter and the Foundation’s formal comments concerning the Obama Board’s “ambush election” rules filed with the NLRB earlier in the year point out, none of these bars are authorized by the statute. Moreover, all undermine workers’ rights under the NLRA by allowing union officials to maintain monopoly representation powers even when a majority of the workers they claim to represent oppose union representation.
“These restrictive doctrines have granted power to union bosses at the expense of the rights of the employees whose choice the National Labor Relations Act purports to protect,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Each of these Board-invented doctrines actively undermines the NLRA’s central premise by trapping workers in unions that lack the support of a majority of workers, which is why the announced rulemaking should eliminate all of these non-statutory barriers to holding decertification votes.”
Workers Sue National Labor Relations Board Over Rule Blocking Them from Exercising Right to Remove Union
Lawsuit: School bus drivers’ petition for a decertification election was blocked under “settlement bar” doctrine in violation of the National Labor Relations Act
Pittsburgh, PA (November 28, 2018) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Pennsylvania school bus drivers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after the Board blocked their petition to hold an election to remove an unwanted union from their workplace.
Marcia Williams and Karen Wunz, employed by Krise Transportation, filed their complaint at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Their lawsuit challenges the NLRB’s “settlement bar” rule, which blocks employees in a union monopoly bargaining unit from holding a secret ballot election to decertify the union before an NLRB-mandated period of time after the settlement agreement date. The complaint asserts that the rule violates the workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
In March 2018, Krise and Teamsters Local 397 entered into a settlement agreement in an unfair labor practice case. The agreement included a clause that barred workers from challenging Teamsters Local 397 union officials’ monopoly bargaining status for a year after the officials’ first bargaining session with Krise. Williams and Wunz were not parties to the agreement.
In May 2018, Williams filed a petition with the NLRB to decertify Teamsters Local 397. Out of the total 28 Krise employees, 24 employees signed the petition to oppose union officials’ representation. However, the NLRB Regional Director blocked their decertification petition using the “settlement bar” rule. Williams requested that the NLRB review the Regional Director’s decision, but the NLRB upheld the dismissal and blocked the employees’ decertification petition.
Williams and Wunz are represented free of charge by Foundation staff attorneys in their attempt to free themselves and their co-workers from unwanted Teamsters union “representation.” Their complaint explains that the NLRA requires the Board to investigate any petition in which an employee alleges that a union no longer commands a majority of the workers’ support, and that if a question of representation exists the Board must direct a secret ballot election.
The complaint alleges that the NLRB’s “settlement bar” rule conflicts with the clear text and plain meaning of the NLRA, as it blocks Williams, Wunz, and their coworkers from raising a question concerning representation and forces them to submit to the monopoly bargaining privileges of a union they oppose. Foundation staff attorneys argue that nothing in the NLRA grants the Board the authority to issue a rule barring employees even for a “reasonable time” from raising a question concerning representation, “let alone a rule based merely on the employer’s settlement of unfair labor practice charges to which the employees were not parties.”
Williams and Wunz ask the court to declare the NLRB’s “settlement bar” rule a violation of the Board’s Congressionally-delegated authority and to order the Board to move forward with their decertification petition.
“The National Labor Relations Act is premised on union officials only being granted monopoly bargaining status when they have the support of a majority of the workers they claim to represent. Yet inexplicably the NLRB has concocted several rules that undermine the Act by blocking workers from voting out unwanted representation,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Such doctrines have been restricting workers’ voices for far too long. Ms. Williams and Ms. Wunz are standing up to challenge the Board’s union boss-friendly practices, and the Foundation is proud to join them to challenge this policy that directly contradicts their rights under federal labor law.”
Park MGM Bartender Wins Back Pay After Being Illegally Fired Because of UNITE HERE Union “Pour Card” Scheme
Labor Board settlement reinstates worker to position with seniority and provides $5,000 in back wages following NLRB unfair labor practice charges
Las Vegas, NV (November 27, 2018) – A Park MGM casino bartender has won a settlement from Park MGM and Bartenders Union Local 165 officials after she filed federal unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. Bartender Natalie Ruisi, who was fired for not having a union “pour card,” is receiving $5,000 in back wages and being reinstated as a result of the settlement.
With free legal assistance by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Ruisi filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Park MGM, formerly Monte Carlo Resort and Casino, and Bartenders Union Local 165, affiliated with UNITE HERE International Union. Aramark, the contractor who hired Ruisi, was also charged and agreed to the settlement.
In addition to paying $5,000 in back wages, the settlement required Aramark and Park MGM to reinstate Ruisi to her previous position with her original seniority. Union officials further agreed not to process any grievances from other workers who might challenge Ruisi’s position on the seniority list.
After Ruisi was hired in November 2016, Aramark management informed Ruisi that UNITE HERE union officials would represent all employees at the Park Theater, located at the casino.
Ruisi and a number of her co-workers were fired on January 12, 2017. Ruisi was told that she and her co-workers were terminated because they did not possess a “union pour card.” The bargaining agreement required bartenders, even those who work for subcontractors, to acquire a “pour card” that could only be obtained through union officials at significant expense to workers who exercised their rights under federal law and state law to refrain from joining and financially supporting the union.
When Ruisi was hired, a union card was not a requirement or condition of employment, and Ruisi was never even given the opportunity to acquire a union card. Moreover, Nevada’s longstanding Right to Work law makes it illegal for any employee to be forced to join a union or pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
“This victory for Ms. Ruisi serves as a warning to Las Vegas union bosses that union-only ‘certification’ schemes to undermine Nevada’s Right to Work law will not be tolerated,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Nevada’s Right to Work law means every employee in the state can choose individually whether or not to join and pay dues to a union. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe countless other Las Vegas workers have been similarly victimized.”
Workers can contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal aid by calling 1-800-336-3600, emailing [email protected], or through the Legal Aid Request form on its website: www.nrtw.org
