News Release: Verizon Employee Files Federal Charge Against CWA Union Officials for Ignoring Her Rights
Verizon Employee Files Federal Charge Against CWA Union Officials for Ignoring Her Rights
Workers refused to abandon job during highly-publicized strike but Verizon continues to illegally seize union dues from her paycheck
Newport News, VA (October 3, 2011) – In the wake of the recent Communications Workers of America (CWA) union-boss instigated strike that grabbed national headlines, a Newport News, Virginia Verizon (NYSE: VZ) worker has filed federal charges against the union and company for violating her rights.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Williamsburg resident Monika Cassell filed unfair labor practice charges against the CWA union, its Local 2205, and Verizon for ignoring her right to refrain from paying union dues.
Upset by the CWA union officials’ order to strike, and desiring to continue working to provide for their families, Cassell and other Verizon employees resigned from the union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – a document used by union officials to automatically collect dues from employees’ paychecks – while the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.
Under Virginia’s popular Right to Work law, no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union; and under federal labor law, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.
Verizon Employee Files Federal Charge Against CWA Union Officials for Ignoring Her Rights
Newport News, VA (October 6, 2011) – In the wake of the recent Communications Workers of America (CWA) union-boss instigated strike that grabbed national headlines, a Newport News, Virginia Verizon (NYSE: VZ) worker has filed federal charges against the union and company for violating her rights.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Williamsburg resident Monika Cassell filed unfair labor practice charges against the CWA union, its Local 2205, and Verizon for ignoring her right to refrain from paying union dues.
Upset by the CWA union officials’ order to strike, and desiring to continue working to provide for their families, Cassell and other Verizon employees resigned from the union and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – a document used by union officials to automatically collect dues from employees’ paychecks – while the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.
Under Virginia’s popular Right to Work law, no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union; and under federal labor law, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.
However, Verizon continues to confiscate full union dues payments from the workers’ paychecks despite their attempts to opt out. And, CWA union officials continue to demand that Verizon keep taking union dues from the workers’ pay.
Cassell’s charges also challenge the CWA union’s dues deduction authorizations because those authorizations do not allow employees to revoke them when no contract is in effect, as federal law requires. Instead, Verizon is forcing the employees to pay full union dues for at least another year – the one-year anniversary of a new contract between the company and the CWA.
“Apparently at the behest of CWA union bosses, Verizon is refusing to honor Monika Cassell’s legally protected right to resign her union membership and cut off union dues,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “It is indefensible that workers who resigned their union membership and continued to work to support their families in defiance of the CWA-ordered strike are now having their rights violated by company and union officials.”
Tennessee Teacher Wins Settlement that Refunds Union Dues Used for Controversial Political Activities
Polk County, TN (October 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Tennessee public school teacher has won a full refund of union dues from the Polk County Education Association (PCEA), Tennessee Education Association (TEA), and National Education Association (NEA) unions. The settlement results from a 2003 complaint filed in state court by Dewey Esquinance, who wished to become a member of the PCEA to participate in negotiations over his wages and working conditions without supporting the union’s political activities.
After a Polk County Circuit Court dismissed the case in 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further deliberations. Rather than go to trial, union lawyers later offered Esquinance a full dues refund, plus interest.
When the original complaint was filed, nonunion teachers at unionized schools were not permitted to vote on contracts between the union and their employer and therefore had no say over their wages and working conditions. After Esquinance joined the PCEA, however, he learned that most union members’ dues were funneled to the TEA and the NEA, the union’s state and national affiliates. These dues were then used to support a variety of political causes Esquinance found objectionable, including financial contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women.
Last summer, Tennessee state law was amended to abolish monopoly union bargaining for public school teachers, which prevented nonunion educators from having a voice at their workplace. As a result, Esquinance and other teachers like him no longer have to join a union to participate in negotiations over their wages and working conditions.
Despite these reforms, Esquinance continued to pursue his lawsuit against the PCEA and the TEA to recover the dues union officials had spent on political activities he found objectionable.
“We’re happy to report that Dewey Esquinance’s dues will finally be returned to their rightful owner,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Nonunion teachers shouldn’t have to join a union or financially support controversial political activism just to have a say in their workplace, which is why this settlement is a victory for Tennessee educators.”
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys fight Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in America
Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.
Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Overreach in Federal Court
Washington, DC (September 16, 2011) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
The new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. However, these rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers’ rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Until the rule changes, which were implemented in late August, employers were required to post notices of workers’ rights only if a violation of labor law occurred.
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys believe the NLRB has exceeded its authority granted by Congress and violated free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Attorneys from the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging the new rule in the same complaint on behalf of two member businesses, Southeast Sealing, Inc. and Lehigh Valley Racquet and 24/7 Fitness Clubs.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the NLRB administers union certification and decertification elections and adjudicates cases when workers, employers, or union officials file unfair labor practice charges against either unions or companies. However, the NLRB is now forcing its way into as many as six million private-sector workplaces by inventing out of whole cloth a new unfair labor practice without Congressional approval. And anyone can file the unfair labor practice charge – not just the company’s employees.
No other federal agency has ever made it unlawful to fail to post a notice that wasn’t required by Congress. Any job provider that fails to post the biased notice could find itself forced into a lengthy and costly legal battle. And as a result, Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – are now under the Obama Labor Board’s microscope and will feel the pressure to hand over their employees to forced unionism.
“Under these new rules, employers are essentially weaponized against workers,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “This ‘divide and conquer’ strategy should erase all doubt that the biased and ideologically-charged Obama Labor Board has turned into an organizing tool for Big Labor set to do one thing: force more workers into paying union dues to keep their jobs.”
“The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is uniquely qualified to demonstrate that this one-sided rule is nothing more than yet another attempt by the Obama NLRB to force more workers into union ranks and stifle the rights of employees who want nothing to do with a union.”
News Release: California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
Court to review Ninth Circuit decision requiring California state employees to contribute to union political fund
Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.
Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a “special assessment” to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.
California State Employees Lay Out Class-Action Lawsuit before Supreme Court
Washington, DC (September 14, 2011) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion California state employees to fund union officials’ political activism.
Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief Monday for the eight California civil servants who initiated a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to raise money from all represented state employees for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals, including one that revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union’s political fund.
Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for members-only events and union boss political activism.
In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment, allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund, provide a refund of monies spent on union-boss politics, and pay interest from the dates of the deductions to nonmembers who chose to opt out.
After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed that decision in December 2010. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced it would review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
"Allowing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to stand would further undermine state employees’ First Amendment rights and encourage union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as a condition of employment," stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is unconscionable for a court to force employees who want nothing to do with the union or its so-called ‘representation’ to subsidize union political activities."
Worker Advocates Issue Labor Day Statement: “Big Labor and the Obama NLRB Work in Concert to Undermine Workers’ Rights”
Washington, DC (September 2, 2011) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday.
“This Labor Day, many workers will enjoy a well-deserved long weekend. But as we prepare to celebrate with friends and family, union officials – working in concert with the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board – are mounting an unprecedented bureaucratic offensive to grab more coercive power. Their goal is simple: To expand the number of workers forced to pay union dues and accept mandatory union representation just to keep their jobs.
“Big Labor’s ambitions were highlighted last week by the abrupt overturn of the NLRB’s Dana decision, which provided a modest check on abusive ‘card check’ union organizing. Instead of allowing workers a window period to contest the outcome of a card check drive with a secret ballot vote, the NLRB has ensured that union operatives need only present a bare majority of signed authorization cards – often collected through violent or unsavory means – to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges.
“And this decision is just the tip of the iceberg. The Obama Board – aided and abetted by its Big Labor allies – is moving forward with onerous new regulations to facilitate union organizing, including rules that will require companies to turn over employees’ home addresses to aggressive union organizers. Meanwhile, the NLRB is suing several states for attempting to protect workers’ access to secret ballot elections and has issued a complaint against Boeing for locating its newest production line in Right to Work South Carolina.
“Throughout the United States, more than 12 million American workers are already compelled to pay union dues just to keep their jobs. Millions more are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they never asked or voted for it.
“Meanwhile, many workers feel they have no choice but to pay for organized labor’s extensive political activities, while others are still unaware of their right to object. That’s why the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is providing free legal aid to thousands of employees nationwide.
“This Labor Day, we commend all workers brave enough to stand up to union intimidation, harassment, and even violence as they defend their cherished freedoms. But we must also continue to fight Big Labor’s bureaucratic attack, which threatens to further subvert workers’ rights.”
News Release: Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Obama Labor Board Kills Important Secret Ballot Precedent
Worker advocate denounces NLRB’s ruling to take away protection workers have against card check forced unionism
Washington, DC (August 30, 2011) – Today, Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its Dana Corp. decision, in which National Right to Work Foundation attorneys secured for employees the right to challenge union card check organizing campaigns with a secret ballot vote.
Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card check, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as "votes" toward unionization.
The NLRB overturned Dana just as President Obama-appointed NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Board Member Craig Becker, who co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case, refused to recuse himself from the case. Becker, a recess nominee, faces bi-partisan opposition to his confirmation in the U.S. Senate. One Board Member, Bryan Hayes, vigorously dissented and called the ruling a blatant roll back of employee freedom.
Any decertification votes that have been cast but not counted by the NLRB will now be discounted, thereby invalidating the voice of thousands of workers nationwide.