Worker Advocate Challenges Constitutionality of Obama’s Controversial Labor Board Recess Appointments

Case over controversial NLRB posting becomes first legal challenge to Presidential attempt to make “recess appointments” without actual recess of the Senate

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body’s rules, so there was no “recess” for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB’s posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation’s case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB’s lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama’s recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body’s rules, so there was no “recess” for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

“President Barack Obama has already shown time and again that he is willing to abuse his executive authority to force more workers into union-dues-paying ranks,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Now Obama’s executive abuse jeopardizes the constitutional balance our country holds very dear, all in the name of paying back his Big Labor benefactors.”

The implementation of the NLRB’s new posting rules, originally supposed to be in August of last year, has been twice delayed due to the legal challenge in the Foundation’s case. The rules are currently scheduled to be effective on April 30, 2012.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is also a party in the case, but is not party to the Foundation’s motion.

On Tuesday, National Right to Work staff attorneys argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of tens of thousands of California civil servants who were forced to contribute to an SEIU “Political Fight Back Fund” in 2005. The video below gives a overview of what’s at stake in the case, including an interview with Foundation staff attorney Jim Young:

You can also read Right to Work President Mark Mix’s op-ed on the case in The Washington Times. Here’s the key quote:

Forcing civil servants to subsidize the political agenda of an organization to which they don’t belong should offend every American, regardless of political sympathies. Voluntary SEIU members may wish to financially support their organization’s political goals, but nonunion employees – many of whom disagree with the union’s agenda – are under no similar obligation. Freedom of association is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and no one should be compelled to support a group to which they don’t belong.

For more info, check out the Foundation’s Knox webpage, which includes links to relevant legal documents, press releases, and media coverage. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release its ruling in the case by June.

The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from its supporters to provide free legal aid. If you can, please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation’s programs.

Washington, DC (January 10, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys will make their fifteenth appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, this time representing California state employees challenging a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political fee charged to workers regardless of their union membership status. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement regarding today’s hearing:

"Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case about union bosses using state workers’ hard earned money for politics without the workers’ permission.

"Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – will argue that the workers should not be forced to pay for union officials’ political spending.

"The Court should knock down this scheme – closing a giant loophole that allows union bosses to confiscate money from workers’ paychecks for political spending sprees – and send a message to union officials, once again, that forced political conformity is wrong."

Civil Servants File Brief Opposing Union Challenge to Public-Sector Unionism Reforms

Workers ask court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Madison, WI (January 9, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, two Wisconsin public employees have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform. The reform protects the Right to Work for most Wisconsin public workers and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.

Christopher King, a social services specialist for Western Wisconsin Cares, and Carie Kendrick, a custodial lead at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, filed the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers state in their brief that “they equate the ‘services’ provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment.”

In their brief, the workers ask the judge to uphold the new law as constitutional and deny the unions’ request to suspend the law. The workers rely on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the Court unanimously held that union bosses enjoy an “extraordinary power” to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, but have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers’ paychecks.

Read the entire release here.

Madison, WI (January 9, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, two Wisconsin public employees have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform. The reform protects the Right to Work for most Wisconsin public workers and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.

Christopher King, a social services specialist for Western Wisconsin Cares, and Carie Kendrick, a custodial lead at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, filed the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The workers, who are forced to accept the “representation” of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers state in their brief that “they equate the ‘services’ provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment.”

In their brief, the workers ask the judge to uphold the new law as constitutional and deny the unions’ request to suspend the law. The workers rely on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the Court unanimously held that union bosses enjoy an “extraordinary power” to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, but have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers’ paychecks.

Meanwhile, three additional Wisconsin civil servants – Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz – continue to defend Walker’s reforms in another federal case pending before the court.

“More courageous Wisconsin public servants who want nothing to do with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’ are coming forward to protect their Right to Work,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “No worker should be ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, which is why Wisconsin should go a step further by passing Right to Work protections to protect all Badger State employees from forced union affiliation.”

Washington, DC (January 4, 2012) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s unprecedented NLRB recess appointments:

"Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB, despite there being no formal recess of Congress, show just how much this Administration is in the pocket of Big Labor. In the last two years the Obama Labor Board has repeatedly enacted one power grab after another on behalf of union bosses, to the detriment of the rights of individual employees – especially those who wish to refrain from union activities. The President’s legally dubious NLRB recess appointments pave the way for another year of forced-unionism giveaways.

"Union bosses know their coercive agenda is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people, which is why they’ve turned to unelected administrative agencies like the NLRB to push through much of what they cannot get through Congress. That’s what makes these appointments all the more offensive in the face of Congress affirmatively taking action to block recess nominations."

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are already exploring possible legal challenges to these unprecedented recess appointments in defiance of Congress.

Boeing Employees Hit Machinist Union with Charge for Discriminating against Workers in Right to Work States

Union bosses abuse process to force Boeing to locate production in state without a Right to Work law

Washington, DC (December 28, 2011) – Three Charleston-area Boeing company (NYSE: BA) employees filed a federal retaliation charge against the Washington State union behind the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) high-profile case against Boeing for building a new facility in South Carolina.

The Charleston-area Boeing employees filed the unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB Wednesday with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The charge comes in the wake of the recent announcement of a backroom deal cut between IAM, its Local 751 union, and Boeing officials which led to the end of the NLRB’s case. The Charleston Boeing employees, who were granted intervenor status in the case by the NLRB in Washington, D.C., were denied participation in the hearing concluding the case.

The charge spells out how IAM union bosses abused the NLRB’s adjudicative process to bully Boeing into locating production of the company’s 737 Max and future airplane production in Washington State, which does not have a Right to Work law. The IAM union bosses’ accusations against Boeing had a chilling effect on Boeing and other companies, deterring them from locating work in South Carolina and other Right to Work states where workers can not be forced to join or pay fees to a union as a job condition.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (December 28, 2011) – Three Charleston-area Boeing company (NYSE: BA) employees filed a federal retaliation charge against the Washington State union behind the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) high-profile case against Boeing for building a new facility in South Carolina.

The Charleston-area Boeing employees filed the unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB Wednesday with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The charge comes in the wake of the recent announcement of a backroom deal cut between IAM, its Local 751 union, and Boeing officials which led to the end of the NLRB’s case. The Charleston Boeing employees, who were granted intervenor status in the case by the NLRB in Washington, D.C., were denied participation in the hearing concluding the case.

The charge spells out how IAM union bosses abused the NLRB’s adjudicative process to bully Boeing into locating production of the company’s 737 Max and future airplane production in Washington State, which does not have a Right to Work law. The IAM union bosses’ accusations against Boeing had a chilling effect on Boeing and other companies, deterring them from locating work in South Carolina and other Right to Work states where workers can not be forced to join or pay fees to a union as a job condition.

The charge also details how IAM union bosses retaliated against the Charleston workers after the workers at the Boeing Dreamliner plant expelled the IAM from their workplace before the production line was located there. One of the employees filing the charge led the effort to remove the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union from the Charleston plant.

The charge points out that if the IAM union hierarchy still had a presence in the South Carolina plant, then the South Carolina workers’ jobs would not have been at risk. Even NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon – who issued the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing – admitted in Congressional testimony that it was inconceivable that IAM union officials would have pursued charges against Boeing if workers had not removed the union from their workplace.

“Workers should be free to choose whether or not to affiliate with a union and not have to worry about their jobs as a result,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “The IAM union bosses’ dangerous abuse of federal labor law, which is supposedly intended to protect the rights of individual workers, has set a devastating precedent to discourage job providers from locating work in states with Right to Work laws on the books – the very states luring job providers and independent-minded workers alike.”

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys have sent a letter to the NLRB’s Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) asking him to investigate the conduct of the ALJ overseeing the NLRB’s case against Boeing in allowing the backroom deal cut between company and union officials to serve as the basis for the case’s dismissal.