New Jersey Energy Workers Win Bid to Remove Unwanted Union
So-called ‘SMART’ Local 137 union officials disclaim representation rather than face a decertification vote of rank-and-file workers
Fairlawn, NJ (March 23, 2023) – Calmac Corp employee Carlos Flores and his coworkers have won their effort to free themselves of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation (“SMART”) Local 137 union. The worker’s decertification effort recently became official when the SMART Local 137 union officials preemptively “disclaimed” interest in representing the Calmac Corp workers, rather than face a vote on whether to remove the union.
Flores, during the course of the decertification effort, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. The decertification petition, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), included the signatures of a significant portion of his coworkers.
The Calmac Corp employee petition was filed on March 7, 2023. The petition was quickly followed by a letter from union officials, disclaiming interest in “representing” Calmac Corp workers. Luckily for the Calmac workers, the entire decertification process was completed rather quickly. However, this is not always the case for many workers around the nation who are also working to remove overbearing unions.
For example, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. That includes “blocking charges”, or charges union officials levy against employers in an attempt to postpone or de-legitimize decertification efforts. These charges often have little to no basis and are used specifically to delay decertification petitions.
Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials, and made it harder for unions to file blocking charges. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much more difficult to decertify a union.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is growing nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, with Flores and his coworkers just being one of these cases.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“While we are extremely satisfied Calmac Corp workers were able to exercise their right to be union-free, had the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms to the NLRB not been in place this could have been a different story with union officials dragging out the process even though they clearly knew any vote would go against the union,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“Should the Biden-appointed NLRB Members be successful in their goal to roll back these reforms, workers like those at Calmac Corp could face enormous hurdles in their decertification efforts and be trapped within union ranks for months or even years,” Mix continued.
Federal Charge: Union Official Threatened Violence Against Concrete Workers Seeking to Vote Out Union
Delaware GFP Mobile Mix Supply driver attacked for opposing the IUOE Local 542 Union
Wilmington, DE (March 20, 2023) – GFP Mobile Mix employee Tanner Bradigan has filed federal charges against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 542 after union officials threatened violent retribution against workers who refused to support the union and later led an effort to remove it. Bradigan and his coworkers are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in this and a related case.
On March 8, 2023, Foundation attorneys filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Bradigan against the union. In the charges, Bradigan stated that IUOE union officials threatened to physically attack every worker who opposed union control in a December union meeting.
According to the charge, some of the Mobile Mix workers, including Bradigan, went to the union meeting in an attempt to learn more about what union officials were claiming it could obtain for employees at the bargaining table. When they stated that they would not be supporting the union, IUOE union officials became aggressive and began screaming at Bradigan and his coworkers, threatening to fight anyone who refused to support the union.
Vance Pennington, Bradigan’s coworker, later submitted a petition on February 2 to the NLRB requesting a decertification election whether to formally remove the union from their workplace. Their petition included the signatures of more than the enough workers in the bargaining unit to trigger the decertification election.
Threatening opponents of the union with violence isn’t the only tactic IUOE union officials have deployed in their attempt to counter the decertification effort, however. IUOE officials have so far been able to stop the vote from taking place using so-called “blocking charges,” a commonly used union tactic meant to delay or shut down decertification petitions entirely.
Foundation staff attorneys recently responded to the union’s allegations by submitting five affidavits from Mobile Mix workers corroborating that the petition for dismissal was completely unrelated to the allegations in the union’s blocking charges against GFP Mobile Mix, but rather legitimate grievances, like the union official’s threats of violence.
The supply drivers at Mobile Mix are not the only workers who are attempting to remove an unwanted union. The NLRB’s own data show that, today, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
Unfortunately, the NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to Board-created roadblocks, with the Mobile Mix workers’ situation being just the latest example. However, Foundation-backed NLRB reforms from 2020 have made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials.
Without these Foundation-backed reforms, workers could have their decertification votes delayed virtually automatically by any unproven union blocking charges, giving union bosses the power to trap workers in union ranks they oppose nearly indefinitely. Under the Foundation-backed reforms most votes will take place promptly, with union blocking claims adjudicated later after the votes have been counted.
“The Foundation will not stop fighting for the workers of Mobile Mix regardless of the malicious union tactics at play in this case,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Workers should never fear retaliation from union bosses for exercising their rights—physical or otherwise.”
“The very fact that IUOE bosses will physically threaten workers who oppose them shows these workers have ample reason, independent of whatever claims union lawyers have made in blocking charges, for wanting to end this union’s so-called ‘representation,’” added Mix.
California Security Employee Appeals NLRB Discrimination Ruling Minimizing Blatantly Illegal Force Union Demands
Labor Board wrongly claimed illegal union membership threats against San Francisco Allied Universal employee were mere clerical errors
San Francisco, CA (March 17, 2023) – Allied Universal employee Thomas Ross filed an appeal after National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials tried to end his discrimination cases against his employer and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on the grounds that they are moot. Ross is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in his several cases against the union and employer.
On November 10, 2022, Thomas Ross hit union officials affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and his employer Allied Universal, with two sets of federal charges for forcing him to join and financially support the union after he told both parties his religious beliefs forbid union support. One set of charges was filed with the NLRB for violating his rights under federal labor law, and the other was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where the charges are still pending, for illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law.
California, where Ross is employed, lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, allowing union officials the power to force workers to pay them fees or be fired. In Right to Work states, in contrast, no worker can be fired for refusal to financially support a union.
However, under federal law, employees with religious objections cannot be compelled to pay union fees, even in non-Right to Work States. Further, under the National Labor Relations Act, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, formal union membership cannot be mandatory, nor can dues be deducted from a worker’s paycheck without explicit authorization.
Despite this, Allied Universal demanded Ross join the union and also illegally seized dues from his paycheck without Ross’ consent, which it then sent to SEIU officials. After Ross filed the charges, Allied Universal refunded Ross’s illegally seized dues and claimed that the deduction was simply an “administrative error”. This led the NRLB to dismiss the case on the basis of the supposed “error” being resolved.
Foundation Attorneys and Ross have ample evidence to demonstrate the dues seizure was not a mere clerical error. In the appeal filed with the NLRB on March 13, 2023, Foundation attorneys highlighted that “it was established company policy that all employees are required to sign the checkoff and membership forms to work at Allied’s ‘union-only’ locations.”
The appeal also showcases several threats made to Ross by Allied Universal, even after receiving written notice of his religious objection. The correspondence in the case “show[s] employer agents reiterating several times that Mr. Ross must sign the membership forms in order to work at a ‘union site,’ or he can find a new job.”
“The Foundation is proud to assist Mr. Ross in his brave fight against religious discrimination and union boss coercion in his workplace,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Apparently at the behest of the SEIU, Allied Universal repeatedly and blatantly violated Mr. Ross’ legal rights. The NLRB should not sweep those under the rug as supposed ‘clerical errors’ because the clear violations of longstanding law financially benefitted union officials.”
“Additionally, it’s important to note that regardless of whether an individual employee’s objection to union affiliation and dues payment is religious in nature or not, ultimately no worker should be forced to pay dues to a union under threat of losing their livelihood,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Opposes NLRB Push to Mandate Abusive ‘Card Check’ Unionization Process
Amicus brief in Starbucks case says NLRB General Counsel’s plan will expose workers to coercive union tactics and contradicts SCOTUS precedent
Washington, DC (March 16, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted an amicus brief at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case involving SEIU union organizers’ attempt to impose unionization on workers at Starbucks without a secret ballot vote. The Foundation’s brief, attached to the motion, defends workers at Starbucks and workplaces nationwide from Biden-appointed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s attempt to effectively mandate coercive “card check” organizing campaigns.
In card check campaigns, professional union organizers can pressure workers into signing cards that are then used at “votes” for unionization in lieu of an NLRB-supervised secret ballot vote.
In the ongoing Starbucks case, former union lawyer Abruzzo is attempting to resurrect the long-discredited Joy Silk NLRB theory, which would force union monopoly control on workers who have not had an opportunity to vote in secret on whether they want a union in the workplace. SEIU officials attempted to impose union control on Starbucks baristas using the so-called “card check” process, in which union agents can bypass the traditional secret ballot method of gaining power in a workplace and can obtain union “authorization cards” directly from workers – often using coercive or misleading tactics.
Card check schemes are recognized by court and NLRB precedents and even AFL-CIO organizing handbooks as inaccurate gauges of true employee support for union control. Despite this, the Joy Silk theory that NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo seeks to revive forbids employers from challenging the results of a card check unionization.
Employers can contest the results of a card check by asking the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot union vote among the employees. Conversely, under Joy Silk, the NLRB has the power to force both workers and employers under union control if an employer objects to the results of a card check.
“Now, the General Counsel seeks to upend five decades of settled law to resurrect Joy Silk,” says the amicus brief. “She seeks a regime of instant unionization through compulsory bargaining orders issued to any employer that refuses to recognize a union based on authorization cards, even though such cards were most assuredly not collected through ‘laboratory conditions.’”
Joy Silk Prioritizes Union Power Over Employees’ Will and Conflicts with Court Precedent
The Foundation’s brief argues that card check unionization drives are “notoriously unreliable” for determining whether a majority of employees in a workplace want a union. Because card check schemes lack NLRB oversight and do not permit employees to vote in private, the brief argues, the door is open for union agents to deploy many kinds of pressure tactics, including soliciting ballots, electioneering, keeping lists of employees who have or have not signed cards, and more.
As opposed to employees in a secret ballot election who vote quickly and privately, “[t]his is not true for an employee caught in the maw of a year-long card check campaign, who may be solicited repeatedly and, perhaps coercively, month after month until he or she signs,” the brief says. If General Counsel Abruzzo brings back Joy Silk, that would allow union bosses to “bypass secret ballot elections at will and secure a compulsory bargaining order virtually anytime they are able to collect a bare majority of authorization cards.”
The amicus brief also maintains that the Joy Silk standard is at odds with a large number of court precedents, including from the D.C. Circuit Court (where many NLRB decisions are appealed), other circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court twice. All of these courts have declared at one time or another that “authorization cards are inferior to secret ballot elections,” the brief says.
General Counsel Abruzzo Seeks to Compel Workers into Union Ranks Despite More Than 90% of American Workers Rejecting Unionization
“NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo – a former CWA union official – continues to show her extremist views when it comes to overturning precedent in the pursuit of greater coercive powers for her former colleagues in Big Labor’s upper echelon,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Inevitably, this comes at the expense of the rights of independent-minded American workers, who want the right to choose whether or not they wish to associate with a union, free from the well-documented coercive tactics union organizers deploy during card check drives.”
“Big Labor advocates previously at least understood that a sweeping change to federal labor law, like eliminating secret ballot elections to mandate ‘card check,’ would at least require an act of Congress,” Mix added. “But with the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill dying in 2010 due to bipartisan opposition, and the so-called ‘PRO-Act’ blocked in the last and current Congress, the Biden Administration is apparently moving forward to radically rewrite federal labor law by bureaucratic fiat.”
San Diego Gompers Preparatory Academy Educators Begin New Effort to Oust SDEA Union Bosses from School
Union bosses stymied last attempt with unproven allegations and pressure from elected officials, majority of teachers now back new effort
San Diego, CA (March 13, 2023) – Teachers at Gompers Preparatory Academy, a public charter school in the Chollas View neighborhood of San Diego, have banded together again to exercise their right to vote San Diego Education Association (SDEA) union bosses out of power at the school.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gompers computer teacher Sean Bentz just submitted a petition to the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), requesting the agency hold a vote among his colleagues on whether to oust the union. The petition contains signatures of a majority of the teachers under the SDEA union’s control.
Bentz’s petition marks the second time in just over three years that Gompers educators have attempted to boot the SDEA union from the school. Gompers chemistry teacher Dr. Kristie Chiscano submitted a decertification petition with Foundation legal aid in October 2019. Despite this petition also having the backing of the requisite number of teachers to spur a decertification vote, SDEA union bosses attempted to avert the election by filing so-called “blocking charges” containing allegations of employer misconduct.
Union officials often manipulate “blocking charges” at the PERB and other state and federal labor relations agencies to stifle worker attempts to eliminate unpopular union “representation.” Despite the PERB never holding a hearing into whether SDEA union bosses’ claims had any merit or whether they were related to the workers’ dissatisfaction with the union, PERB officials denied a decertification election to Chiscano and her colleagues in October 2020.
State Labor Agency’s Rule Aided Union in Blocking Vote
Chiscano’s case defending the first petition to remove SDEA union agents from the school also sought to overturn PERB Regulation 32752, which requires PERB agents and attorneys to accept union bosses’ “blocking charge” allegations as true – a stipulation almost guaranteeing union defeat of any worker attempt to vote a union out.
The initial union decertification effort took place not long after SDEA officials gained power at the school in January 2019 via “card check,” a process that bypasses the traditional secret-ballot vote system to install a union. Gompers made an impressive transition to being a union-free charter school in 2005 after years of being plagued by unresponsive union bureaucracies, violence, and poor academic achievement, so many teachers and parents viewed the reinstallation of union power at the school with suspicion. Some accused SDEA agents of actively sowing division at the school, including by supporting anti-charter school legislation and needlessly disparaging the school’s leadership.
“I chose to work at a school that didn’t have a union and now they’ve come in and they’re running everything about my contract and my work,” Chiscano said at the time.
Union Agents Targeted Teachers Who Led Effort to Vote Out Union
Even worse, shortly after the PERB’s ruling halting the original decertification effort, Chiscano and another Gompers educator filed charges maintaining that SDEA agents targeted them on social media for opposing the union hierarchy. California law makes it illegal for union officials to intimidate or retaliate against employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership.
Union boss-aligned state legislators even chimed in to pressure Gompers management to give in to union demands. In a letter to Gompers management, then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez attacked the National Right to Work Foundation simply for providing legal aid to Gompers educators as they sought to exercise their right to hold a decertification election. Gonzalez was best known during her tenure for authoring AB5, a California law that drastically reduced opportunities for freelance workers and independent contractors across the state.
Teachers’ Union Decertification Efforts Expose Massive Power of California Public Sector Unions
Sean Bentz filed the new decertification petition renewing the fight to oust the union at the earliest time permitted by California labor regulations, which immunize union officials from employee-led decertification efforts for all but a tiny window while union contracts are active. But the new decertification attempt will likely face the same roadblocks of “blocking charges” as the old one.
“The new decertification effort at Gompers Preparatory Academy pits concerned educators against California’s most entrenched special interest – public sector union bosses,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In their last endeavor, Gompers teachers, who simply wanted to exercise their right to vote on whether SDEA union bosses deserved to remain in power, faced specious allegations meant to block the vote, union attacks on social media, and even pressure from union-label politicians.”
“Foundation attorneys will proudly fight alongside Gompers teachers to vindicate their rights, but ultimately this effort should expose how California’s labor laws prioritize union bosses’ desire for control over schools and other public services far above the rights of the employees who provide these services,” Mix added.
Pipefitters Union Hit with Federal Charge for Illegal Retaliatory Fine against Non-Union Las Vegas Worker
For participating as an observer in an NLRB union election, the heating and plumbing worker faces $4,999 in punitive union boss initiated fines
Las Vegas, NV (March 10, 2022) – An employee in Las Vegas, Nevada, has filed federal charges against the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA) union Local 525, in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine him. The employee, David Webb, chose to exercise his right to work during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)-sanctioned election. The case was filed at the National Labor Relations Board Region 28 by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys to challenge his retaliatory fines by the union officials.
Webb, a Universal Plumbing and Heating Inc. employee, has not been a union member since 2017. Despite this, UA union officials initiated internal union disciplinary charges against him, resulting in an attempt to levy a fine of $4,999 against him for exercising his right to participate in a NLRB-sanctioned election, including as an official election observer.
Although union bosses often initiate internal union discipline against voluntary union members, longstanding precedent protects workers who are not union members from being subjected to such retaliatory fines. Further, workers can never legally be fined by union officials for exercising their protected rights under federal labor law, including participating in an NLRB-supervised election to decide whether or not union officials become the monopoly bargaining “representative” of workers in a given workplace.
Nevada is a Right to Work state, meaning workers cannot legally be required to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials who have obtained monopoly bargaining control in a workplace are granted the power to impose one-size-fits-all union contracts on all workers, including those who opt out of union membership and would prefer to negotiate their own terms of employment. In the election that triggered the illegal retaliatory fine against Webb, workers voted against granting UA union bosses such monopoly bargaining powers.
“Fining a nonmember worker for poll-watching is not only absurd but blatantly illegal,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If UA union bosses want to know why workers are declining formal union membership and also voting against bringing so-called union ‘representation’ into their workplace, they should look at their own conduct and how they abuse the rights of rank-and-file workers.”
“Other workers nationwide facing similar backlash from union officials should know they can reach out to Foundation staff attorneys for free legal assistance in challenging union bosses,” added Mix.
California Trucking Company Workers Win Freedom from Unwanted Teamsters Local 665 Union Officials
Rather than face vote to strip union officials of their forced representation powers, Teamsters officials concede defeat
Santa Rosa, CA (March 9, 2023) – Valdivia Trucking Co. workers in California are finally free of unwanted Teamsters Local 665 union officials after three months of delays created by the union officials. The workers’ bid to remove the union recently became official when, rather than face a decertification vote of Valdivia workers whether to strip the union of its power, the union preemptively “disclaimed” interest in representation and walked away from the workers.
Valdivia Trucking worker John Murdick received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation while filing for a decertification vote. His decertification petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) included the signatures of a significant majority of the workers at the facility.
The workers’ petition was filed on December 16, 2022, and quickly resulted in a stipulated election agreement for a decertification vote on January 6. However, the vote was delayed by preexisting “blocking charges” the union filed with the NLRB. This is a union tactic often used to delay workers’ decertification elections, because union officials fear if the vote goes forward the union may lose.
As a result of these blocking charges against the employer the vote was delayed three months, until March, when the blocking charges were finally closed. This permitted the vote to proceed. It was at that point the union officials notified the company’s lawyers and the NLRB that it disclaimed interest in “representing” the Valdivia Trucking employees. That gave the workers the outcome they sought, albeit delayed by nearly three months.
The NLRB’s union decertification process is prone to union boss-created roadblocks. Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials. However, the Biden NLRB is attempting to roll back these protections and make it much harder to decertify a union.
For example, the 2020 reforms blocked union officials from resubmitting overlapping charges, which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions, designed to delay the process further. Had these reforms not been in place, the three-month delay for these workers could have been extended indefinitely.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is growing nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, like the one brought by Murdick and his coworkers.
The process to decertify a union should be simple. Federal law provides that workers can hold decertification votes in most instances as long as they have a petition with the signatures of at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit. However, rules created by NLRB bureaucrats combined with legal tactics deployed by union lawyers often mean workers face legal hurdles in just getting the opportunity to hold a vote whether to remove an unwanted union.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign.
“The Valdivia Trucking decertification situation shows how union officials often use underhanded tactics to remain in power and collect dues from hard-working people as long as possible, even though they know a majority of workers oppose their so-called representation,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“Although we are extremely satisfied that the Valdivia workers have exercised their legal right to be union-free, we cannot neglect the importance the 2020 Foundation-backed reforms played in this case,” Mix continues. “If the Biden-appointed NLRB is able to roll back these reforms, as they are attempting to do, workers like those at Valdivia may be trapped in union ranks they oppose for many months and even years.”
Fort Bliss-Based Grounds Management Inc. Workers Unanimously Vote to Oust IUOE Local 351 Union
Workers officially free of unwanted union boss “representation” after every worker votes against union in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Decertification Election
Fort Bliss, TX (March 6, 2023) – Following a unanimous employee decertification vote, Grounds Management Incorporated (also known as GMI National) employees are now officially free of unwanted monopoly bargaining “representation” by Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 351 union bosses. Grounds Management worker Antonio Eduardo Reza, who united every one of his fellow coworkers in opposing the union, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in exercising the employees’ right to hold the decertification vote.
The union decertification election was administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on February 15. Because a full week has now passed since the 17-0 unanimous vote without any objections made by union officials, the result is final and the workers are officially union-free.
Although the NLRB’s union decertification process is still prone to union boss-created roadblocks, Foundation-backed reforms the NLRB adopted in 2020 have made it somewhat easier for workers to remove unwanted union officials.
Before the reforms, for example, union officials could stop workers who requested a decertification vote from casting ballots by filing so-called “blocking charges,” which often contain unverified and unrelated allegations of employer actions. The 2020 rule changes improved the process so employees can at least have a chance to vote before any allegations surrounding the election are resolved.
Worker interest in removing unwanted unions is up nationwide, with National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys fielding numerous requests for free legal assistance in decertification cases, like the one brought by Reza and his coworkers. The process should be simple, with federal law stating that workers can hold decertification votes in most instances as long as they have a petition with the signatures of at least 30% of workers in a bargaining unit. However, rules created by NLRB bureaucrats combined with legal tactics deployed by union lawyers often mean workers face legal hurdles in just getting the opportunity to hold a vote whether to remove an unwanted union.
The NLRB’s own data show that, currently, a unionized private sector worker is more than twice as likely to be involved in a decertification effort as a nonunion worker is to be involved in a unionization campaign, with one analysis finding decertification petitions up 42% last year.
“Although we’re glad Antonio Reza and his coworkers were able to free themselves of a union that they all opposed, this case only demonstrates just how outrageous it is that the Biden NLRB is moving to roll back reforms that make it easier for workers to exercise their right under federal law to vote out a union they oppose,” observed Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If the Biden-appointed majority on the NLRB has its way, just one unfounded allegation by union bosses will be enough to block a vote like this for months or more, even though every single worker wanted nothing to do with the union’s so-called ‘representation.’”
Northern PA Metal Worker Prevails in Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Deductions
CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation and sought to force him to remain union steward
Galeton, PA (March 3, 2023) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, has successfully forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials to stop illegally seizing money from his paycheck for union politics and ideological causes. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys represented Coates for free before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Coates charged CWA union officials in May 2022 with unlawfully snubbing both his request to resign from his position as a union shop steward and his request to formally end his union membership. Full union dues deductions also continued to flow out of his paycheck even after his requests. Coates argued that CWA bosses violated his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, unions can legally coerce workers into paying union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions, and excludes deductions for union political or ideological activities. In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are both strictly voluntary.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to post a notice at Coates’ workplace declaring that they “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your union membership,” and “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your role as a union steward.” CWA union officials have also stopped siphoning money for union politics and ideological activities from Coates’ wages.
CWA Forced Dissenting Worker to Remain Shop Steward, Took Full Dues Illegally from Paycheck
According to his charge, Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. A union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
In December 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages and what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization.
Coates’ charge asserted that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.
Foundation President: No Place for Compulsory Union Support in Federal Law
“CWA officials summarily denied Mr. Coates’ valid exercise of his right to refrain from union membership, unlawfully seized money for union politics, and even forced him to remain a union shop steward,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The extreme aversion CWA union officials seem to have to any kind of dissociation with the union shows where their focus lies: maintaining forced worker subsidization of union activities and not on respecting workers’ individual rights.”
“Such union malfeasance is only buoyed by federal labor law, which permits states to deny Right to Work protections to private sector workers,” Mix added. “No American worker should be forced to fund any kind of unwanted union purpose as a condition of keeping his or her job, which is why securing Right to Work protections for all Americans is absolutely vital.”
National Right to Work Foundation Urges TX Supreme Court to Nix Scheme Directing Taxpayer Funds to Union Boss Activities
Legal brief: SCOTUS ruled that public sector union activities are political in nature, “official time” arrangement mandates taxpayer support for union politics
Austin, TX (March 2, 2023) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has just submitted an amicus brief in Roger Borgelt v. City of Austin, a case before the Texas Supreme Court. The case challenges a scheme in which the City of Austin directs taxpayer dollars to Austin Firefighters Association (IAFF) union officials to conduct union business on so-called “official time.”
The petitioners, including the State of Texas, maintain that this arrangement violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses, which forbid payouts of taxpayer funds that do not serve a legitimate public purpose. The case is currently on appeal from the Texas Third Court of Appeals.
The Foundation’s brief argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME case shows why the “official time” scheme runs afoul of the Gift Clauses. The High Court ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to fund any union activities as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment, and that union dues can only be deducted from a public sector worker’s paycheck with his or her freely given consent.
Requiring taxpayers to fund union activities “conflicts with the Supreme Court’s reasons for holding in Janus that it violates the First Amendment to require public employees to subsidize union activities,” the brief says.
Landmark Janus Decision Shows How Union Bosses Use “Official Time” to Prop Up Union Politics
The Foundation points out in its amicus brief the Janus Court’s holding that union monopoly bargaining activities “constitute speech and petitioning on matters of political…concern,” and that by funneling taxpayer money into such speech “the City is effectively paying individuals to lobby the City for a private advocacy organization and its members.”
“The notion that this political advocacy predominantly serves a public purpose, as opposed to predominantly benefiting the private organization, is untenable,” the brief reads.
The brief also refutes an assertion by the Third Court that “official time” payments made by the city are actually part of union officials’ compensation for their normal job duties. This defies Janus’ reasoning that public employees who are also union officials “do not act as government agents pursuing their official job duties when they act as union officials.”
“For example, in granting paid leave to employee Bob Nicks to act as the Union’s president, the City is not paying Mr. Nicks for his services as a firefighter or as a public servant,” the brief explains. “The City is paying Mr. Nicks for his services as an agent of a private organization—the Union—in violation of the Gifts Clauses.”
The brief also counters the lower court’s finding that taxpayer subsidies for “official time” are needed to maintain harmonious relations with the union. Just as the Supreme Court’s Janus decision rejected that argument as a permissible reason for forcing workers to subsidize union activities related to monopoly bargaining, here similarly union officials can also “exercise their powers as exclusive representatives without the taxpayer subsidy of [official time],” says the brief.
Moreover, the Foundation’s brief explains that this union argument is troubling on a much deeper level: “If respondents contend that Union officials would disrupt City services if they did not receive association business leave, that would make the benefit akin to the City paying protection money” to union officials, reads the brief.
Union Bosses Are Not Entitled to Public Funds to Pursue Union Interests
“The Texas Supreme Court must recognize that union officials are not entitled to a slice of taxpayer funds to ‘bargain’ against public interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Texas’ Gift Clauses forbid the payout of public funds for activities that don’t have a tangible public benefit, and it’s hard to think of an arrangement that violates the Clauses more plainly than letting union bosses pursue private union business on the taxpayer dime.”
“While Janus now protects public employees around the country from being forced to fund union activities and speech against their will, unfortunately many states and municipalities across the country permit union bosses to subsidize those same inherently political activities using direct payment of tax dollars,” Mix added. “If union bosses cannot convince rank-and-file workers to voluntarily fund such activities as Janus requires, they should re-examine their priorities, not seek to force taxpayers to pay for what public employees won’t.”
