Michigan Home-Care Providers File Class-Action Suit Challenging Union Boss/Granholm Unionization Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge Governor and union boss collusion to force home-care providers under union control

Lansing, MI (February 17, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a group of Michigan home-based day-care providers have filed a class-action federal lawsuit against government union officials and Governor Granholm’s Administration for illegally forcing them to pay union dues.

Carrie Schlaud and Diana Orr of Lapeer County, Edward and Nora Gross of Ingham County, and Peggy Mashke of Ogemaw County — with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — filed the federal suit today on behalf of all of Michigan’s 40,000 home-care providers.

The suit challenges a scheme created by Granholm, Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) officials, and a union front group called “Child Care Providers Together Michigan” (CCPTM) to designate home-care providers who accept state assistance as “state employees” and foist CCPTM union political “representation” on them. CCPTM is an operation run by the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME) unions.

Under Granholm’s direction, DHS officials created the “Michigan Home Based Child Care Council” to provide the union bosses with an entity to deal with as the “management” of the home child-care providers. Even though only 15 percent of the 40,000 day-care providers voted in the union certification election, the CCPTM union hierarchy was granted monopoly bargaining privileges and political representation of all the home-care providers.

Click here to read the full release.

Lansing, MI (February 17, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a group of Michigan home-based day-care providers have filed a class-action federal lawsuit against government union officials and Governor Granholm’s Administration for illegally forcing them to pay union dues.

Carrie Schlaud and Diana Orr of Lapeer County, Edward and Nora Gross of Ingham County, and Peggy Mashke of Ogemaw County — with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — filed the federal suit today on behalf of all of Michigan’s 40,000 home-care providers.

The suit challenges a scheme created by Granholm, Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) officials, and a union front group called “Child Care Providers Together Michigan” (CCPTM) to designate home-care providers who accept state assistance as “state employees” and foist CCPTM union political “representation” on them. CCPTM is an operation run by the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions.

Under Granholm’s direction, DHS officials created the “Michigan Home Based Child Care Council” to provide the union bosses with an entity to deal with as the “management” of the home child-care providers. Even though only 15 percent of the 40,000 day-care providers voted in the union certification election, the CCPTM union hierarchy was granted monopoly bargaining privileges and political representation of all the home-care providers.

The DHS now siphons union dues from the providers’ paychecks and forwards the money into the union bosses’ bank accounts. Recent media reports suggest that in exchange for their special government-granted privileges to force Michigan’s home-care providers under union monopoly control, the union bosses benefiting from this scheme contribute to various pro-compulsory unionism politicians in Michigan, including Governor Granholm.

The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback; union bosses funnel millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians, and the same politicians are forcing home-care providers to pay tens of millions of dollars into union boss coffers,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

The federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.

Washington, DC (February 16, 2010) – After a protracted legal battle, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel has sustained part of an appeal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenging a backroom unionization deal between Tenet Healthcare Corporation and the California Nurses Association (CNA) union.

As part of their efforts to forcibly unionize hospital employees across the country, CNA officials and Tenet Corporation agreed to a series of measures designed to impose union monopoly bargaining on unwilling nurses. This so-called Election Procedures Agreement (EPA) gave union organizers preferential access to Tenet facilities and gagged nurses who opposed unionization.

The agreement between Tenet and the CNA also subverted the NLRB’s oversight role during workplace elections. Under the CNA union’s scheme, the NLRB’s only role is to count ballots and rubber-stamp the union’s monopoly bargaining privileges, effectively gutting the already limited rights of employees who wish to resist unionization.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, nurses in Houston and Philadelphia have repeatedly challenged the legality of this arrangement. In earlier proceedings, Tenet was forced to give nurses who opposed forced unionism equal access to hospital facilities.

A recent appeal filed by Foundation attorneys challenging the EPA was partly sustained by the NLRB’s General Counsel. The General Counsel agreed with Foundation attorneys that a provision of the EPA committing Tenet to binding arbitration if union officials and the company are unable to agree on a first contract constitutes illegal pre-recognition bargaining between the union and the company, allowing union officials to negotiate substantive terms of employment for workers they don’t even represent. The legality of this provision will now be litigated before an administrative law judge and ultimately the federal courts.

“CNA bosses shouldn’t be empowered to negotiate on behalf of workers they don’t even represent,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Tenet Corporation and CNA operatives have stacked the deck in favor of union organizers, stifling independent-minded employees in an attempt to push Houston and Philadelphia nurses under union boss control, like it or not.”

Workers Prevail in Battle for Secret Ballot Vote After Corrupt Card Check Unionization Scheme

Communications union bosses collude with AT&T to lock local group into union ranks without majority support

Seattle, WA (February 11, 2010) – A group of AT&T Mobility employees have won a legal victory countering union officials’ domination of their workplace using a coercive card check unionization campaign that occurred after union organizers colluded with AT&T officials to sweep the workers into union ranks in exchange for contract concessions.

Per a so-called “neutrality agreement” between the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union hierarchy and AT&T, workers in a 140-employee bargaining unit (which consists of various locations across the state of Washington) were “card checked” into the CWA union’s regional monopoly bargaining unit which consists of thousands of employees.

In exchange for AT&T foisting CWA monopoly bargaining on workers through a card check organizing drive, union officials agreed to subject employees to a contract which results in lost benefits for the workers, including promotion opportunities. Moreover, the employees’ inclusion in the larger regional unit would make it virtually impossible for them to later organize to remove the union officials’ monopoly bargaining privileges.

However, using precedent won by Right to Work Foundation attorneys in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) landmark 2007 decision in Dana Corporation, Joseph Simpson of Redmond and his colleagues filed a decertification petition demanding a secret ballot election to remove the unwanted union from their workplace.

Click here to read the full release.

Seattle, WA (February 11, 2010) – A group of AT&T Mobility employees have won a legal victory countering union officials’ domination of their workplace using a coercive card check unionization campaign that occurred after union organizers colluded with AT&T officials to sweep the workers into union ranks in exchange for contract concessions.

Per a so-called “neutrality agreement” between the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union hierarchy and AT&T, workers in a 140-employee bargaining unit (which consists of various locations across the state of Washington) were “card checked” into the CWA union’s regional monopoly bargaining unit which consists of thousands of employees.

In exchange for AT&T foisting CWA monopoly bargaining on workers through a card check organizing drive, union officials agreed to subject employees to a contract which results in lost benefits for the workers, including promotion opportunities. Moreover, the employees’ inclusion in the larger regional unit would make it virtually impossible for them to later organize to remove the union officials’ monopoly bargaining privileges.

However, using precedent won by Right to Work Foundation attorneys in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) landmark 2007 decision in Dana Corporation, Joseph Simpson of Redmond and his colleagues filed a decertification petition demanding a secret ballot election to remove the unwanted union from their workplace.

In Dana, the NLRB, citing the coercive nature of card check organizing, recognized that employees should be able to file a decertification petition and demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after notice that a union has obtained monopoly bargaining powers through card check.

CWA union brass contested the employees’ request for a secret ballot election because it was not made within the 45-day window period. However, the NLRB regional director in Seattle investigating the matter confirmed employees had not been told of their right to request the election as Dana requires, because the notice was not posted at the facility where a majority of employees worked. Apparently the notice about their Dana rights was “taken down” at some point. The first time employees heard about their right to an election was when one of them contacted the Foundation. The regional director decided that the employees’ petition was therefore valid.

CWA union lawyers are now attempting to tie up the NLRB decision in an attempt to avoid an election at all costs and are appealing the regional office’s decision to the national board in Washington, DC – joining union lawyers in a handful of other high-profile cases asking the NLRB to undo workers’ Dana protections.

“Dana provides these employees with a last line of defense against a union boss-nurtured scheme concocted to force them under union control,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While it is certainly important that these employees will now be able to challenge the unreliable card check unionization scheme with a secret ballot election, the fact is that employees should never be forced into union ranks to begin with.”

Hudson, OH (February 3, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, First Student workers in Hudson have successfully stripped Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) Local 791 union officials of their power to force school bus drivers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

After repeated clashes with OAPSE union brass, Janet Barlow – a driver at First Student – circulated a workplace petition to strip the union of its power to collect forced dues from First Student employees. After collecting signatures from her coworkers, Barlow submitted the petition to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which then supervised a January 26 election to determine if union officials would be stripped of their extraordinary power to extract forced dues from First Student drivers.

After reviewing the results, the NLRB announced that 41 workers voted in favor of revoking the union’s dues-collecting privileges while only 19 voted against. As a result, OASPE Local 781 union officials are no longer legally allowed to demand mandatory dues payments from First Student employees.

Deauthorization elections aimed at ending union bosses’ dues-collecting privileges are an uphill battle for independent-minded workers. Incumbent union officials enjoy the benefits of workplace access and often company support, while employees must first collect signatures from over 30 percent of their coworkers to trigger a deauthorization vote. Moreover, employees who abstain from voting or miss the election are counted as votes in favor of maintaining a union’s forced dues powers. Although the deck was stacked in favor of forced unionism, Barlow and her coworkers successfully rescinded Local 781’s dues-collecting powers.

The result follows a prolonged legal battle between union officials and Barlow, whose previous attempt to opt out of union dues for politics met with resistance from OAPSE bosses. Prompted by these setbacks, Barlow circulated a deauthorization petition to remove the union’s forced dues privileges.

Barlow previously filed charges with the NLRB against OAPSE officials for discriminating against nonunion workers and failing to notify First Student employees of their rights to resign from union membership. Barlow’s original allegations are still being investigated by the NLRB, but NLRB officials have notified Foundation attorneys that they’ve found merit to Barlow’s charges.

“After enduring workplace discrimination at the hands of OAPSE officials, Janet Barlow and her colleagues finally said enough was enough and removed union bosses’ dues-collecting privileges,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although these bus drivers successfully curtailed compulsory unionism in their workplace, employees should not be forced to undertake such an arduous campaign just to get rid of union bosses’ forced dues powers.”

“The real solution is to stop forced unionism before it starts by giving employees the protection of a Right to Work law that makes union membership and dues payment fully voluntary,” concluded Semmens.

Federal Labor Board Rejects Frivolous Teamster Union Charges Against National Right to Work Foundation

Fearing a lack of support, union bosses attempt to abuse process to prevent employee election

Seattle, WA (February 2, 2010) – The National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has dismissed as unwarranted and unsupported frivolous charges filed by Teamsters union officials against the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Teamsters Local 117 union bosses filed the unfair labor practice charges against the Foundation in a desperate attempt to stall an employee vote at Alan Ritchey, Inc. which would allow the employees to rescind the union hierarchy’s forced dues privileges – which requires employees to pay union dues and fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.

After reviewing the charges, the NLRB regional director in Seattle outright rejected the charges as unwarranted and unsupported.

Click here to read the full release.

Seattle, WA (February 2, 2010) – The National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has dismissed as unwarranted and unsupported frivolous charges filed by Teamsters union officials against the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Teamsters Local 117 union bosses filed the unfair labor practice charges against the Foundation in a desperate attempt to stall an employee vote at Alan Ritchey, Inc. which would allow the employees to rescind the union hierarchy’s forced dues privileges – which requires employees to pay union dues and fees as a condition of keeping their jobs.

After reviewing the charges, the NLRB regional director in Seattle outright rejected the charges as unwarranted and unsupported.

In November, Alan Ritchey employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen contacted the Foundation after union bosses circulated a letter threatening that they would be subject to discharge in 2-3 days unless they notified the union whether their status was as members or objecting nonmembers who do not wish to pay for the union’s activities such as political activism, legislative lobbying and union social events. However, May, Allen and other employees were already on record with the union as being nonmember objectors. Thus, it appeared that union officials were simply trying to intimidate them.

With help from Foundation attorneys, May and Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center – filed unfair labor practice charges against Local 117 in November.

About the same time, other Alan Ritchey employees filed a petition seeking a deauthorization election, which could void the forced union dues clause in the contract with their employer. In a move seemingly designed to prevent the election, Local 117 union bosses filed the charges against the Foundation, which blocked the employee vote.

“With Teamsters Local 117 union bosses focusing their energies on harassing independent-minded employees who exercise their rights, it’s little wonder these employees want to strip the union bosses of their forced dues privileges,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Foundation attorneys won private-sector employees the right to refrain from funding non-bargaining union boss activities in the 1988 Communications Workers of America v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. However, only through the protection of a Right to Work law is an employee’s decision whether to support a union with their hard-earned money fully voluntary.

Indianapolis, IN (February 1, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, an Indianapolis bus driver has filed federal unfair labor practice charges challenging American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3826 union officials’ discriminatory workplace practices.

Barry Hickman is a bus driver employed by First Student in Indianapolis, Indiana. As an employee in a unionized workplace, he is forced to accept union monopoly bargaining and pay certain union dues to Local 3826. Hickman was also involved in a prolonged legal battle to opt out of paying dues for union political activism, which was finally resolved in 2009 when AFSCME officials acknowledged his right not to fund their political activities.

However, Hickman and similarly situated employees have been targeted for workplace discrimination by union officials. AFSCME bosses are retaliating against Hickman and his coworkers because they previously filed unfair labor practice charges against the union with the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

At issue in these new charges is a scheme to manipulate First Student’s extra trip list to artificially limit the earnings of Hickman and other employees who object to the union’s activities. The trip list assigns First Student drivers additional compensation for driving trips beyond scheduled routes. Union officials manipulated the list to limit nonunion drivers’ access to extra trips. When Hickman asked to review the extra trip list, union officials told him to get a lawyer.

Hickman’s charges allege that these practices violate the National Labor Relations Act and the union’s duty of representation, which grants union officials the power to ‘represent’ all workers in a bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership status. The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“AFSCME union bosses are always eager to keep independent-minded workers in line and paying forced dues, and this discriminatory policy is just one more ugly example of how employees who bravely stand up to union intimidation are treated,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Mr. Hickman shouldn’t have to ‘get a lawyer’ to ensure he’s treated fairly on the job, but union bosses forced his hand.”

“Ultimately, passing a Right to Work law in Indiana would go a long way towards curbing this type of ugly retaliation by union bosses against the employees they claim to represent,” Semmens continued.

Philadelphia, PA (January 28, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Philadelphia nurse has filed federal charges challenging an attempt by her employer and outside union organizers to ignore the results of a workplace election rejecting unionization.

Joanne K. McGovern is a registered nurse employed by Hahnemann University Hospital, a medical facility owned and operated by Tenet Healthcare Corporation. McGovern and her hospital coworkers recently endured a prolonged organizing drive, during which union operatives from the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and its local affiliate, the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP) union, attempted to impose unionization on hospital employees.

Despite a backroom deal between the CNA union and Tenet that suppressed employee opposition to unionization and granted union organizers preferential access to hospital facilities, the nurses voted against the CNA in June 2009.

Undeterred by this setback, union lawyers have turned to private arbitration and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to block the certification of this result, claiming that CNA organizers were intimidated during the organizing drive.

Although the NLRB has yet to rule on these claims or even hold a hearing, hospital and union officials recently agreed to disregard the election results anyway. In November 2009, the CNA union and the hospital announced plans for a new unionization election despite the fact that the NLRB has not invalidated the results of the last workplace election.

McGovern’s charges challenge the legality of this move, arguing that workers who have already voted should not be subjected to repeated elections until they submit to unionization. The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB.

“After getting roundly rejected by Hahnemann nurses, union officials just won’t take no for an answer,” said Patrick Semmens, director of legal information for the National Right to Work Foundation. “By attempting to stifle hospital workers’ votes against unionization, CNA bosses have shown that their real goal is pushing nurses into the union’s forced dues-paying ranks, like it or not.”