**El Paso, TX (February 5, 2007)** – National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials have issued a formal complaint and agreed to prosecute a local security guard union and employer for unlawfully suspending a local guard without pay in retaliation for asserting his legal right to refrain from union membership.

The complaint stems from charges Juan Vielma, a local AKAL Security employee, filed against the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union and his employer with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Vielma’s charge details how the SPFPA union hierarchy holds a monopoly bargaining agreement with his employer that illegally makes financial support for the union a mandatory condition of employment.

AKAL Security, a national contract security provider, capitulated to the union hierarchy’s illegal demands when they indefinitely suspended Vielma without pay in June 2006 for failure to formally join union ranks and pay money to the union. Under protections afforded by Texas’ highly-popular Right to Work law, union membership and dues payment are strictly voluntary. While Texas state prosecutors are yet to take action to enforce these clear violations of Texas criminal law, Foundation attorneys persuaded federal officials to pursue the matter to the extent possible under federal law.

AKAL Security and SPFPA union officials are falsely claiming that Vielma and his colleagues work on federal property that is not protected by the Right to Work law – and thus can be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. NLRB investigators disagreed, and found that the union hierarchy violated federal law by restraining and coercing employees exercising their limited rights under the National Labor Relations Act to refrain from union participation.

“Such blatant violations of the freedom of association are unbecoming of the State of Texas’ long tradition of defending employees’ Right to Work,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy wants Mr. Vielma and his coworkers to just shut up and pay up.”

Foundation attorneys seek reinstatement and back pay for Vielma, as well as a notice to all AKAL Security employees about their rights to refrain from union membership and dues payment. The NLRB has scheduled a hearing for March 13, 2007, before an administrative law judge.

**Hartford, CT (January 31, 2007)** – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation an employee of Colt Manufacturing has filed a rare *mandamus* petition asking a federal appellate court in Washington, DC to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to rule in a long-delayed case that has languished at the federal labor board for nearly four years.

George Gally, a 40-year veteran Colt employee, originally filed unfair labor practice charges in 2003 challenging the United Autoworker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for non-collective bargaining activities such as union politics and lobbying. Gally filed his *mandamus* petition at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* decision, the court recognized that workers have the right to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership and pay a reduced fee to cover the union’s collective bargaining costs. But UAW officials have violated the Supreme Court’s *Beck* and related appellate court rulings by requiring Gally and his co-workers to re-object every year – a practice intended to discourage them from reclaiming their money.

The current delay is part of a 15-year history of illegal actions by UAW officials against Gally. In December 2003, a federal administrative law judge awarded Gally nearly $31,000 in compensation plus interest for pay lost after he was illegally fired at the request of UAW Local 376 union officials in 1991. Earlier in 2003, Gally filed the unfair labor practice charges challenging the UAW union officials’ annual objection scheme.

“The issue is simple: for Gally and his co-workers, justice delayed is justice denied,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “Instead of defending the rights of individual employees that have been victimized by compulsory unionism abuses, too often the NLRB has sat on its hands allowing union officials’ wholesale workers’ rights violations to continue.”

Gally’s case is far from the only example of delayed justice for workers at the NLRB, a federal bureaucracy long criticized for political in-fighting and institutional bias favoring compulsory unionism. Only a few weeks ago the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the labor board to produce a ruling in a Foundation-assisted case that began in 1989.

In that case the NLRB was ordered to rule by January 30, 2007, but when the decision was finally released – 17 years after Schreiber Foods employees Sherry and David Pirlott first filed the case – the majority of the Members issuing the decision refused to address the core legal issue of whether nonunion workers can be compelled to pay for union organizing activity.

**Washington, DC (January 30, 2007)** – Forced to rule by an extremely rare court order, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) let stand a controversial Clinton NLRB ruling that approved the firing of workers who refuse to pay for union organizing campaigns. The ruling came in a long-languishing case initiated in 1989 by two cheese processing plant workers against Teamsters Local 75 in Green Bay, Wisconsin, with free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Although David and Sherry Pirlott, employees of Schreiber Foods, won part of their case on technical grounds, the NLRB refused to enter a judgment barring union officials from compelling the payment of union dues that are spent for union organizing. Accordingly, nonunion members nationwide may be forced as a condition of employment to pay for recruitment of new union members and to fund highly aggressive corporate campaigns intended to bully companies and employees into unionization. Union organizing expenditures often comprise as much as 40 and even up to 60 percent of a union’s budget, and nonmembers bristle at the use of their forced dues to corral even more workers into unions.

In a blistering dissent, Member Peter Schaumber scorned as “indefensible” the NLRB majority’s decision not to reverse a controversial Clinton-NLRB ruling that violated rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Schaumber also noted that the NLRB was reneging on its earlier representations to the U.S. Supreme Court. The agency had argued against U.S. Supreme Court review of its Clinton-era *Meijer* decision on the grounds that the NLRB would have the opportunity to reevaluate its position in *Schreiber Foods*. By now refusing to follow through and either reaffirm or overturn *Meijer*, Schaumber noted, the NLRB “effectively insulates the *Meijer* decision from appellate and Supreme Court review for the foreseeable future.”

“David and Sherry Pirlott have waited nearly two decades only to be slapped in the face by the agency charged with protecting them,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “This is justice delayed, and justice denied. Not only did it take two lawsuits against the agency and over 17 years to extract a ruling, but now the Board thumbs its nose again at binding U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The handling of this case is an embarrassment to all federal executive agencies.”

Foundation attorneys persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to order the NLRB to rule in the *Schreiber Foods* case in just the third known mandamus order ever issued against the Board since its creation in 1935. The Pirlotts’ case was the oldest of scores of cases in which Right to Work Foundation-assisted employees are trying to reclaim their forced union dues used for non-bargaining activity. Foundation attorneys are planning a vigorous appeal.

Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in *Communications Workers v. Beck* and *Ellis v. Railway Clerks*, cases brought by employees represented by Right to Work Foundation attorneys, workers may not be lawfully forced to pay for any union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, or grievance adjustment such as union organizing, politics, extra-unit litigation, and member-only programs.

**Washington, DC (January 22, 2007)** – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, two Schreiber Foods employees from Green Bay, Wisconsin, persuaded a federal appellate court to order the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to rule in a long-delayed case the workers filed in 1989. Having refrained from formal union membership, the workers are challenging union officials’ use of their forced union dues for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, particularly union organizing costs.

Union organizing expenditures often comprise 20 to 40 percent of a union’s budget, and nonmembers have bristled at the notion of their compulsory dues being used to force even more workers into unions.

The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the extraordinary order, mandating that the NLRB must rule in the case by January 30, 2007. The case – originally filed by David and Sherry Pirlott 18 years ago against Teamsters Local 75 in Wisconsin – is the oldest of scores of cases in which Foundation-assisted employees are trying to reclaim their forced union dues used for non-bargaining activity.

The NLRB, which has long been plagued by what critics have called political in-fighting and institutional bias favoring compulsory unionism, faced similar appellate court scrutiny in the Pirlott case in 1998. But rather than decide the case that had long been pending on the docket in Washington, DC, the Board sent the case back to an administrative law judge for further fact finding. The case returned to Washington, DC, in 2001 where it has since collected dust awaiting a decision.

The Pirlotts’ writ of mandamus petition, filed in June 2006, pointed out the Board’s egregious and unjustifiable delay in issuing a decision. The appellate court ruling grants the writ and denies the NLRB’s request for yet another extension of time – mandating that the NLRB issue a “judicially reviewable” ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court ruling forecloses the Board from once again shuffling the case around the NRLB bureaucracy in another attempt to shirk its duties.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “When asked to defend the rights of employees who labor under forced unionism, this agency has been AWOL all too often. And the status quo usually benefits union officials, not workers.”

Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in *Communications Workers v. Beck* and *Ellis v. Railway Clerks*, cases brought by employees represented by Foundation attorneys, workers may not be lawfully forced to pay for any union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract negotiation, or grievance adjustment such as union organizing, politics, extra-unit litigation, and member-only programs.

**Columbus, OH (January 22, 2007)** — A St. Marys-area teacher today filed a federal complaint challenging the constitutionality of a statewide law denying public employees the right to a religious objection to paying union dues if they do not belong to certain state-approved religions.

With free legal help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Carol Katter, a 21-year veteran teacher in the St. Marys school district, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division. Katter filed the complaint against top officials of the Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB) for religious discrimination in enforcing the contested statute.

SERB officials cannot claim ignorance, as the agency had recently been an incidental party to an earlier investigation and lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice and National Right to Work Foundation attorneys involving similar actions.

Katter filed a related charge this week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union, state affiliate of the National Education Association, challenging an attempt by union officials to divert her forced dues to the local union rather than a charity.

The federal court complaint spells out that, even though Katter is a lifelong Catholic, she was denied her right to an adequate religious accommodation. Katter believes that failing to divert her forced dues from the union contradicts her beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for abortion on demand.

Further still, an OEA union official told Katter that she must “change religions” in order to receive a religious accommodation before SERB. Katter’s complaint cites that the state’s discriminatory statute amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and seeks a federal injunction prohibiting SERB from further enforcing the law against other state employees.

“Carol Katter’s struggle underscores that Ohio employees still face an uphill battle when objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Until Ohio passes a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, such abuses will inevitably continue.”

Katter’s charge follows a federal court decree issued last fall that re-affirmed that all public sector employees who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation cannot be forced to associate with and pay dues to a union they find objectionable. That decree stemmed from another Foundation-assisted case challenging similar systematic religious discrimination throughout Ohio. However, for technical reasons, Ohio’s SERB itself was not formally bound by that decree even though it was well aware of its existence.

**Buckhannon, WV (January 17, 2007)** – Esther Gearhart, a ResCare, Inc. assisted living employee filed federal labor board charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 and ResCare for their attempts to force unwanted unionization on health care employees all across West Virginia.

Gearhart filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 6 offices in Pittsburgh, PA, with assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. The unfair labor practice charges ask for an injunction to block the union and ResCare from continuing their unlawful activities, and they detail multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act by SEIU officials and ResCare.

Gearhart’s charge is the second such charge filed by ResCare employees with help from Foundation attorneys in recent weeks. In late December, Foundation attorneys helped employees in the Princeton area file charges to block similar unlawful union organizing activities. Employee reports also signal similar activities occurring across the state border in Ohio.
As part of an agreement kept secret from employees, ResCare executives agreed to abandon even the limited protections offered to employees under an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election in choosing whether to unionize. Instead the agreement imposed a coercive “card check” procedure, in which union organizers can browbeat employees individually to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is controversial for severely curtailing workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize.

The “card check” procedure used at ResCare is part of a larger misnamed “neutrality agreement” designed to have the employer assist union organizers in pushing workers into the union’s ranks. Under such agreements, the company commonly must give union officials unfettered access to workers on company property and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees, resulting in home visits from groups of union organizers. Such agreements also often contain a “gag rule” preventing employers from discussing any potential impact of unionization on employees.

In exchange for agreeing to assist the union with the card check scheme, ResCare executives received concessions from SEIU officials, including an agreed upon contract to be foisted upon the employees once the unionization is complete. Such “pre-recognition bargaining” clearly violates federal law, yet the SEIU and ResCare are now rolling out this scheme all over West Virginia, and possibly Ohio as well.

“Union officials sold out the interests of the very workers they sought to ‘represent’ in order to force unionization and compulsory dues upon them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union organizers’ illegal behavior shows that they don’t respect the rights of the workers; it’s all about the money.”

**Fort Worth, TX (January 17, 2007)** – A television cameraman employed as a “daily hire” for the Walt Disney Company (ABC) through its subsidiary ESPN Television filed federal charges against the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Local 41 union challenging a pervasive practice in the entertainment industry of forcing union membership on part-time and freelance independent contractors. The cameraman also filed charges against the Chicago-based union for threatening to have him fired for refusing to pay thousands of dollars in compulsory union dues.

Donald J. Geist filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after receiving multiple letters from NABET officials demanding that he join the union, pay a $1500 “initiation fee,” and then pay monthly forced dues in the amount of $125. When Geist refused to pay, union officials sent a letter to Geist’s sometimes employer ABC, threatening that their business relationship would end and that he would be blacklisted from future work.

The NLRB charges, filed by Geist with the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, show multiple violations of federal labor law by NABET officials. As a daily hire Geist should not be subject to compulsory union membership because he is never employed for thirty consecutive days, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Because he has never been employed continuously by ABC for 30 days, Geist cannot be subjected to compulsory union dues. Yet the contract that NABET union officials reached with ABC is illegal on its face because it requires employees to pay forced dues after only 20 non-continuous days of employment in any year or 30 days within two years.

Despite being facially invalid, requirements of this nature are commonplace in the entertainment industry. Often union officials use threats of blacklisting such workers from future work to press them into paying union dues in violation of federal law.

“The disgraceful behavior by NABET union officials shows just how far they will go to force people to pay up or lose their jobs – even if that means completely disregarding the rights of the individual workers they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, this case is not an anomaly. All around the country employees in the entertainment industry are having unionization forced on them whether they like it or not.”

Even if Geist could have been subjected to the contract in the first place, his NLRB charge also lays out that union officials didn’t follow requirements handed down by the US Supreme Court in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck case designed to ensure that employees’ right to object to paying forced union dues used for union political expenditures, lobbying, and organizing is protected.

Washington, DC (January 10, 2007) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Davenport v. Washington Education Association. The Foundation is a non-profit organization providing free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse, and whose staff attorneys filed the case in 2003 and successfully appealed the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of lead petitioner Gary Davenport and 4,000 other nonunion Washington State teachers.

“The Davenport case is a defensive battle that underscores how labor law is a stacked deck against the individual. In the 28 states without Right to Work laws, millions of employees are forced to choose between paying dues to a union they do not support and losing their job. Washington is one of these states.

“This case is a legal rescue mission that should have never been necessary. In responding to a law trying to limit this abuse, an activist ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court created from whole cloth a constitutional ‘right’ for union officials to spend dues taken from nonunion employees on politics. This precedent could cause sweeping damage to employee rights across America.

“The underlying campaign finance law – known as ‘paycheck protection’ – had been totally ineffective. Because of its fatally narrow definition of what constitutes a political expenditure, it cannot provide meaningful relief to employees forced to pay union dues.

“The real solution is to take away union officials’ special privilege to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

“But we cannot allow the Washington court to use this ineffective law as a platform to cause sweeping damage to the First Amendment. If this activist ruling is upheld, even Right to Work laws could come under attack.

“Fortunately, there is a silver lining to this otherwise defensive battle. The Washington Court ruling has presented a major opportunity for the cause of employee freedom.

“National Right to Work Foundation attorneys representing the Petitioning teachers have asked the Justices to correct a problem flowing from a 45 year-old-ruling by this court. In a case that involved union members, this court said 45 years ago that employee ‘dissent is not to be presumed.’ Using this as justification, unions have set up cumbersome opt-out procedures to prevent nonunion members from paying anything less than full union dues.

“But the U.S. Supreme Court can now put a stop to it. National Right to Work attorneys are asking that the Supreme Court take the simple step of clarifying that when employees say no to union membership, they indeed ‘dissent’ from the union!

“This simple clarification – that ‘no’ indeed means ‘no’ – would sweep away the union objection procedures, and nonunion members would be entitled to an automatic reduction in their dues by several hundred dollars. Where employees do not enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, they could still legally be forced to pay the cost of union bargaining.

“Since there are at least a million nonunion members in America that are forced to pay dues – a ruling on this point would nevertheless be a major breakthrough for employee rights.

“We hope the U.S. Supreme Court gives employees the help that they need in protecting their rights against the tyranny of compulsory unionism.”

To schedule an interview – or for more information –
call Justin Hakes at 571-243-3637.

**Washington, DC (January 10, 2007)** – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association*. The Foundation is a non-profit organization providing free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse, and whose staff attorneys filed the case in 2003 and successfully appealed the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of lead petitioner Gary Davenport and 4,000 other nonunion Washington State teachers.

“The *Davenport* case is a defensive battle that underscores how labor law is a stacked deck against the individual. In the 28 states without Right to Work laws, millions of employees are forced to choose between paying dues to a union they do not support and losing their job. Washington is one of these states.

“This case is a legal rescue mission that should have never been necessary. In responding to a law trying to limit this abuse, an activist ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court created from whole cloth a constitutional ‘right’ for union officials to spend dues taken from nonunion employees on politics. This precedent could cause sweeping damage to employee rights across America.

“The underlying campaign finance law – known as ‘paycheck protection’ – had been totally ineffective. Because of its fatally narrow definition of what constitutes a political expenditure, it cannot provide meaningful relief to employees forced to pay union dues.

“The real solution is to take away union officials’ special privilege to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

“But we cannot allow the Washington court to use this ineffective law as a platform to cause sweeping damage to the First Amendment. If this activist ruling is upheld, even Right to Work laws could come under attack.

“Fortunately, there is a silver lining to this otherwise defensive battle. The Washington Court ruling has presented a major opportunity for the cause of employee freedom.

“National Right to Work Foundation attorneys representing the Petitioning teachers have asked the Justices to correct a problem flowing from a 45 year-old-ruling by this court. In a case that involved union members, this court said 45 years ago that employee ‘dissent is not to be presumed.’ Using this as justification, unions have set up cumbersome opt-out procedures to prevent nonunion members from paying anything less than full union dues.

“But the U.S. Supreme Court can now put a stop to it. National Right to Work attorneys are asking that the Supreme Court take the simple step of clarifying that when employees say no to union membership, they indeed ‘dissent’ from the union!

“This simple clarification – that ‘no’ indeed means ‘no’ – would sweep away the union objection procedures, and nonunion members would be entitled to an automatic reduction in their dues by several hundred dollars. Where employees do not enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, they could still legally be forced to pay the cost of union bargaining.

“Since there are at least a million nonunion members in America that are forced to pay dues – a ruling on this point would nevertheless be a major breakthrough for employee rights.

“We hope the U.S. Supreme Court gives employees the help that they need in protecting their rights against the tyranny of compulsory unionism.”

**Washington, DC** – Wednesday morning, January 10, at approximately 11:00 a.m. EST the U.S. States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the cases of Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA) and Washington v. WEA. The High Court will decide whether to overturn a Washington State Supreme Court decision that discovered a “right” for union officials to spend nonunion employees’ forced union dues on politics.

If this unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment is allowed to stand, it will represent a major step backwards for the rights of unionized employees, and it could lead to legal attacks on America’s 22 state Right to Work laws which ban forced union dues. On the other hand, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys also seek a ruling that would strike down union opt-out procedures imposed on nonunion employees nationwide who are forced to pay union dues as a job condition.

**What**: Media availability directly following Supreme Court oral arguments in Davenport v. WEA and Washington v. WEA

**When**: Approximately Noon EST (at the conclusion of oral arguments)
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

**Where**: Immediately at the base of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street NE
Washington, DC 20543-0001

**Who**:
*Mark Mix*, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is providing free legal aid to the Davenport teacher plaintiffs

*Milton Chappell*, National Right to Work Foundation Staff Attorney and Lead Counsel for 4,000 nonunion teachers in Davenport v. WEA

*Gary Davenport*, Lead Petitioner in Davenport v. WEA

**Why**: As the only national organization dedicated solely to protecting workers from abuses of compulsory unionism, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is the foremost expert in this important area of the law.

For more information or for press materials contact Justin Hakes at (571) 243-3637.