Airline Workers Challenge Federal Ruling on Sham Transportation Unionization Election Procedures

Appeal contests federal district court ruling that upheld new policy stacking the deck in favor of forced unionization of railway and airline employees

Washington, DC (July 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Delta Air Lines employees have appealed a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to uphold a major rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

In June, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman refused to impose an injunction halting the new unionization election procedures, which were hastily instituted over the objections of National Mediation Board Chair Elizabeth Dougherty.

The two NMB members who approved the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its election policy of 75 years.

The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over railway or airline industry workers if the union acquires support from just a bare majority of eligible workers in an election, no matter how few actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

Read the full release by clicking here.

Washington, DC (July 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, five Delta Air Lines employees have appealed a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to uphold a major rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

In June, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Paul Friedman refused to impose an injunction halting the new unionization election procedures, which were hastily instituted over the objections of National Mediation Board Chair Elizabeth Dougherty.

The two NMB members who approved the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its election policy of 75 years.

The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over railway or airline industry workers if the union acquires support from just a bare majority of eligible workers in an election, no matter how few actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

The five Delta workers and similarly situated employees in the railway and airline industries could soon find themselves forced into fees-paying ranks against their will. There are ongoing unionization efforts at Delta by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and AFA unions.

Foundation attorneys contend that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in a class or craft.

Unlike private sector workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, nonmember employees in the railway and airline industries are not protected by the Right to Work laws in Georgia, where Delta is headquartered, and 21 other states. Furthermore, the rule change is especially troubling given the complicated bureaucratic hoops these workers must jump through to remove an unwanted union.

“Legal disputes over terms of employment are too often depicted as battles between union bosses and management,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation Legal Information Director. “We believe the district court erred in ignoring the impact of these new election procedures on individual employees, whose right to bargain individually with their employers could now be tossed aside by a stealth organizing campaign undertaken by professional union organizers.”

Washington, DC (July 8, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees, has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General to expand the scope of his announced investigation into Craig Becker, Obama’s recess appointee to the Board. Prompted by a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA.) and other members of the House Oversight Committee, the Inspector General has indicated he will investigate Becker’s involvement in St. Barnabas v. SEIU Local 1957 for possible conflicts of interest.

Earlier this summer, Right to Work attorneys filed 13 recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the NLRB during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s in-house lawyer, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation attorneys and developed legal strategies for SEIU affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers or the SEIU and its subordinate affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has rejected the recusal motions in all but one pending case.

In one notable instance, Becker refused to recuse himself from a pending case that would overturn the NLRB’s landmark Dana decision, which created a 45 day window period for employees to vote out union officials if they acquired their monopoly bargaining privileges through a card check organizing drive. Becker denies having pre-judged the case despite a career of advocating for card check union organizing and despite having filed a brief arguing against the Board’s decision.

The Foundation’s letter to the NLRB Inspector General also notes that the Obama Administration ethics pledge Becker signed explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years. Despite this provision, Becker is poised to decide several cases involving SEIU affiliates.

“Craig Becker has repeatedly refused to recuse himself from cases involving his former employer,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If the NLRB Inspector General is serious about investigating Becker’s clear conflicts of interest, he should examine all cases where Becker’s work as a leading SEIU lawyer raises serious ethical questions.”

Warwick, RI (July 8, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Boston issued a formal complaint indicating that local union officials have kept nurses in the dark about the amount of compulsory union dues.

The NLRB’s regional director investigated unfair labor practices charges filed by a Kent Hospital nurse with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. The regional director found merit to the charges that United Nurses & Allied Professionals (UNAP) union officials failed to meet federal financial disclosure requirements and will now prosecute the union before an administrative law judge.

In September 2009, Jeanette Geary and other nurses informed UNAP union officials that they were exercising their right to refrain from formal union membership and to the payment of any fees for non-bargaining activities including politics and member-only events.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, employees can only be forced to pay union dues related to workplace bargaining as a condition of employment. Additionally, union officials are obligated to provide employees with an independently verified breakdown of union expenditures to determine how much objecting employees must pay.

UNAP union officials, however, have failed to provide Geary and other nonmember nurses with adequate disclosure as required by law. According to the complaint, union bosses have failed to provide any evidence of an independent audit “beyond a mere assertion.” Moreover, union officials have not provided any breakdown of expenditures from a “Defense Fund” despite claiming they include chargeable expenses.

“Unfortunately, union boss financial chicanery is all too common and many workers are kept in the dark about their rights,” explained Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Ocean State should enact a Right to Work law to protect the freedom of association of independent-minded workers.”

Washington, DC (July 1, 2010) – Prompted by a letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA.) and other members of the House Oversight Committee, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General has announced he will investigate NLRB recess appointee Craig Becker’s involvement in St. Barnabas v. SEIU Local 1957. The investigation bolsters several motions for recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, who contend that Becker’s evident conflicts of interest should have disqualified him from ruling on their cases.

Right to Work attorneys filed 13 recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the Board during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s general counsel, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation attorneys and developed legal strategies for SEIU affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers or the SEIU and its state and local affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has rejected the recusal motions in all but one case pending before the NLRB.

In one notable case, Becker refused to recuse himself from union lawyers’ attempt to overturn the NLRB’s landmark Dana decision, which created a 45 day window period for employees to vote out union officials if they acquired their monopoly bargaining privileges through a card check organizing drive. Becker denies having pre-judged the case despite a career of advocating for card check union organizing.

After Rep. Issa raised the issue in a recent letter, the NLRB’s Inspector General announced he will investigate Becker’s involvement in the pending St. Barnabas case. Becker claims that he has abided by all relevant provisions of the federal code and a signed ethics pledge he submitted to the Obama Administration. That pledge states he will not participate in any cases involving his former employer for two years following his appointment to the NLRB.

“We’ve provided free legal aid to thousands of workers who have clashed with the Service Employees International Union, Craig Becker’s former employer,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Becker’s evident conflicts of interest – not to mention his avowed hostility toward the Foundation’s legal aid program – should be reason enough for recusal in several NLRB cases.”

“That the Inspector General of this decidedly pro-forced unionism Administration is launching an inquiry demonstrates the extent of Becker’s ethical problems,” continued Mix. “Throughout his career, Becker has revealed himself as an avid supporter of Big Labor’s special privileges. The IG should expand the scope of the investigation to the numerous other cases in which Becker’s background as an SEIU lawyer makes him unable to judge objectively.”

Minneapolis, MN (July 1, 2010) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that assists employees nationwide, is renewing its offer of free legal assistance to any Minneapolis nurses who do not wish to participate in another union-instigated strike.

The Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union has again decided to strike against 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities area on July 6. However, recent media reports suggest that many nurses do not wish to participate in the impending strike.

Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, responded to the union’s strike threat by issuing the following statement:

“Many Minneapolis nurses may wish to work during the strike to ensure that their patients receive medical attention. Nurses who want to continue working must be made aware of their workplace rights, including the right to resign from union membership and the right to refrain from participating in a union-instigated strike. A more detailed description of every nurse’s legal rights can be found on the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/a/a_7_p.htm

“Foundation attorneys are prepared to advise Twin Cities nurses about their workplace rights. We are also prepared to provide free legal assistance to any nurses who are subjected to union harassment or retaliation for working during this or any subsequent strike initiated by MNA officials. You can call the Foundation toll free at 800-336-3600 or request free legal assistance via email at [email protected].

“The National Right to Work Foundation is committed to helping nurses who wish to continue working rather than participate in a union-instigated strike,” continued LaJeunesse. “Nurses must assert their legal rights to ensure they aren’t subjected to draconian internal union discipline for choosing to remain on the job, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist them.”

Under Supreme Court precedent and federal law:

• Workers have the right to resign from union membership at any time.

• Workers have the right to go to work even if the union is on strike. If a worker chooses to work during a strike, he or she must first resign from union membership to avoid union disciplinary action such as fines.

• After a union’s monopoly bargaining agreement with their employer expires, workers have the right to sign a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to eject union officials from their workplace.

Washington, DC (June 28, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted an amicus curiae brief urging the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to oppose two petitions that could force Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees into union ranks. If granted, the petitions would allow monopoly bargaining privileges for union officials seeking to organize TSA employees.

In late May, a FLRA Regional Director ruled that American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Treasury Employees (NTE) union operatives could not organize TSA workers, but union lawyers appealed the decision to the FLRA proper. According to Foundation attorneys, the unions’ arguments would leave workers vulnerable to aggressive union organizers and possibly compromise national security.

The Foundation’s brief argues that the FLRA has no authority to dictate the TSA’s labor relations, noting that the Administrator of the TSA has jurisdiction over TSA employees and previously refused to grant union organizers monopoly bargaining privileges.

Foundation attorneys also argue that subjecting TSA workers to union monopoly bargaining could compromise national security by risking union-instigated strikes and undermining security procedures with time-consuming union work rules. The TSA’s ability to tailor its response to rapidly-emerging threats could suffer if administrative flexibility is hamstrung by bloated union bureaucracies.

Moreover, the Foundation’s brief notes that extending monopoly bargaining privileges to union organizers constitutes a serious breach of TSA employees’ rights. Under monopoly bargaining, if union organizers acquire or coerce support from a bare majority of TSA employees, they can then dictate terms and conditions of employment to all workers in a given bargaining unit, including those who oppose unionization.

“Despite obvious risks to both national security and workers’ rights, Big Labor is intent on forcibly organizing TSA employees,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the FLRA will have the sense to reject this attempt to further extend Big Labor’s monopoly bargaining privileges.”

‘Card Check-lite’ proposal would undermine the integrity of workplace elections and push more employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely . . .

Click here to read more. 

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely.

The Foundation’s comments note that under an electronic voting scheme, it would be even easier for workers to be threatened, coerced or bribed by aggressive union organizers with access to portable electronic devices like laptops or cell phones. Compared to an NLRB-supervised unionization election, the potential for abuse during a union organizing drive conducted via electronic voting is clearly higher.

The Foundation’s comments also note that remote voting would make it difficult to verify the identity of workers submitting electronic ballots, opening the door to voter fraud and abuse. Moreover, electronically-submitted votes could be monitored or altered by hackers or system administrators, leaving workers vulnerable to retaliation and vote-stealing after they’ve submitted their ballots.

“Although their efforts to bypass the secret ballot through coercive card check legislation have stalled, Big Labor could be handed another tool to undermine workplace elections if the NLRB moves to adopt electronic voting,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Much like card check organizing, electronic voting leaves the door open to coercion and identity theft, and will be used by aggressive union organizers to impose forced unionism on more workers.”

Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest

New federal labor board member and former SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker thumbs his nose at much-touted Obama ethics policy

Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.

But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.

Click here to read the full release.