Lake Geneva, Wis. (July 1, 2003) — Enjoying free legal aid from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an employee of Trostel SEG, Inc., filed federal charges against local union officials for illegally forcing him to pay full union dues, including dues spent for politics.

Brandon Moran, a non-union employee at Trostel’s Lake Geneva plant, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Independent Union of National Amalgamated Workers (NAW) Local 711. The NLRB is responsible for investigating the charges and will decide whether to prosecute the union for unfair labor practices.

“NAW union officials’ actions show they only care about stuffing their coffers with union dues rather than respecting the wishes of rank-and-file employees they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Within the past six months, Moran notified NAW union officials of his resignation from the union and intention to pay only those costs directly related to collective bargaining. NAW union officials have illegally continued seizing full union dues from Moran, claiming Moran had authorized the employer to deduct full union dues from his paycheck. Despite the union’s claims, neither the company nor NAW has shown it has a valid dues deduction authorization on file.

The actions of NAW union officials violate the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. Under Beck, workers are allowed to resign from formal union membership and halt and reclaim the portion of forced union dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics, organizing, and public relations. Union officials must provide workers a list of activities they claim they can compel non-members to subsidize.

“No one should be forced to pay compulsory dues to a union, especially when its officials continually abuse that federally granted special privilege,” stated Gleason. “Until Wisconsin workers enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, workers will continue suffering this type of abuse at the hands of self-serving union officials.”

Tulsa, Okla. (June 27, 2003) – In a ruling that severely jeopardizes Oklahoma’s recently enacted Right to Work amendment, Judge David Patterson of the Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County ruled that the constitutional amendment enacted by the voters is somehow unconstitutional.

Judge Patterson issued the order in Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts, a recently discovered “collusive lawsuit” filed quietly in May with the apparent intention by both parties (union and employer) of voiding the state’s Right to Work law without serious arguments made by a party that sincerely supports the law.

Learning of the stealth suit, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – representing Stephen Weese, a Tulsa-area employee – filed a motion two weeks ago to intervene in the suit to ensure that the law was vigorously defended. However, rather than act on that pending motion, the court instead rushed to grant summary judgment for the union and declare that the Right to Work amendment – which protects employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues – is unconstitutional.

Legal documents show that the employer defendant, electrical contractor Ralph Pitts, is represented by an attorney who has previously represented International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 584, a member of the plaintiff trades council and the “real party in interest” in this lawsuit. This attorney filed only a perfunctory “opposition” to the union’s motion for summary judgment.

Earlier this week, the Foundation filed a formal request under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act with Attorney General Drew Edmondson for all internal documents that reflect discussion as to why the attorney general refused to intervene to defend state law and the will of Oklahoma voters. Aside from telling the media that the attorney general does not “usually” get involved in district court cases challenging the constitutionality of state law, the attorney general’s office has not yet responded to this request. In fact, the attorney general has intervened in similar cases.

“The shenanigans that have taken place in this lawsuit raise serious questions,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the Foundation. “This appears to have been an inside job from the beginning.”

As a “defendant intervenor,” Weese and Foundation attorneys could make arguments to defend his direct financial and liberty interests at stake in the preservation of the Right to Work amendment. Foundation attorneys vow an appeal of the judge’s ruling. On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma became a Right to Work state when voters enacted State Question 695, a constitutional amendment. Since it effect, Oklahoma has led the nation in several economic performance categories – despite a struggling American economy.

Washington, DC (June 25, 2003) — After years of legal arguments and public pressure brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel has finally agreed to challenge a common union tactic of requiring employees to object every single year if they don’t want union officials to spend their compulsory union dues for political activities.

The union requirement that employees object year after year – rather than once – has dramatically hampered the effect of a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that employees cannot be compelled to pay union dues for political and other non-collective bargaining activities.

“Union officials use these annual objection schemes to hamstring and demoralize employees so that their forced-dues money continues to flow into union political coffers,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the Foundation. “Though encouraging, the NLRB General Counsel’s decision finally to prosecute this tactic as an unfair labor practice is a merely a small step towards vigorous enforcement of employees’ right to withhold union dues spent for partisan politics.”

The first-ever complaint issued by the General Counsel’s office on this issue came years after two federal courts ruled that such a requirement is illegal. The complaint arises out of unfair labor practice charges filed at the NLRB by Foundation attorneys on behalf of Patrick Quick and four other employees. A former president of Graphic Communication International (GCI) Union Local 735-S, Quick lives in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, and retired recently.

In 1999, Quick notified Local 735-S union officials of his desire to resign his union membership, a right affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Patternmakers v. NLRB. The union maintains a policy that employees must annually renew their objections if they desire a reduction in their forced union dues so that they are only subsidizing collective bargaining activity.

Foundation attorneys contend that this annual objection requirement violates worker protections established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1998 Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck, a case argued and won by Foundation attorneys, non-members cannot be forced to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union political activity.

Detroit, Mich. (June 23, 2003) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today announced it has launched a national ad campaign to educate the public about the abusive nature of the increasingly prevalent union organizing tool known as a “neutrality agreement.” Under these pacts, employers are required to substantially assist union organizers in corralling employees into union ranks.

The ads are currently running in targeted communities where the United Auto Workers (UAW) union is rolling out its coercive organizing drive at Big Three suppliers located in cities such as Glasgow, Kentucky; Gaffney, South Carolina; Lowell, Michigan; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Athens, Tennessee. Numerous other communities are on the advertising target list for in the coming weeks.

The newspaper ads expose several tactics – some of which are illegal – employed by union operatives under these coercive “neutrality agreements.” Under these agreements, employers typically turn over employees’ names, addresses, and other personal information to union organizers who then conduct “home visits.” They also give union organizers wide access to company facilities, and conduct company-paid “captive audience” speeches during which employees are told that they risk losing job opportunities if they opt against unionization. Additionally, employees are usually stripped of the opportunity to decide on unionization through a traditional secret ballot election.

“When workers see their employer working hand-in-glove with union organizers, they feel tremendous pressure against exercising their legally protected right to refrain from union affiliation,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employee victims of compulsory unionism abuse. “The ads are intended to inform employees that they have the right to resist the harassment and threats that have become so common during these top-down organizing drives.”

Pressured by UAW officials, crippling strikes, and the “Big Three” auto makers, companies such as Johnson Controls, Magna International, and Freightliner have signed one of these so-called “neutrality agreements” requiring the major suppliers to assist in efforts to unionize employees at their non-union facilities across America.

The use of “neutrality agreements” is part of a larger national trend in union organizing. In recent years, as union organizers have had less success in persuading employees to vote for unionization during secret ballot elections, unions have focused on organizing employers instead, thereby short-circuiting employee consent. For more information or to obtain copies of the ads, please call Dan Cronin, National Right to Foundation Director of Legal Information, at 703-770-3317.

Tulsa, Okla. (June 19, 2003) – Obtaining free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Tulsa-area worker this week asked to intervene in state court to defend Oklahoma’s Right to Work constitutional amendment against a stealth union lawsuit filed without fanfare two months ago.

Filed in Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County, Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts challenges the Right to Work amendment on grounds that it violates the Oklahoma constitution. Circumstances suggest that the suit is a “collusion suit” intended by both parties (union and employer) to void the state’s Right to Work law quietly, without arguments made zealously by a party that sincerely supports the law.

Meanwhile, the state’s Democrat attorney general quietly declined to intervene to defend the Right to Work amendment. Neither the attorney general nor any party to the suit has publicly revealed its existence, even though it could overturn the will of a majority of Oklahoma voters.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys representing Stephen Weese, an employee of the Oklahoma Fixture Company in Tulsa, learned of the suit from a legal brief filed by union lawyers in the Oklahoma Supreme Court as part of proceedings in another lawsuit filed against the Right to Work amendment on entirely separate grounds. That case, which awaits a final ruling by the state’s highest court, challenged the amendment on grounds that certain provisions were preempted by federal law.

Weese filed papers this week with the Tulsa court seeking to be admitted to this new case as a “defendant intervenor” to ensure that his attorneys can file briefs and make arguments to defend his direct financial and liberty interests at stake in the preservation of the Right to Work amendment.

“Stephen Weese shows real courage by coming forward to stand up for worker freedom across Oklahoma,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “As a defendant intervenor, Weese will be able to make sure the court hears arguments that Oklahoma’s Right to Work law is beneficial to employees.”

In this new “stealth” lawsuit, union lawyers argue the Right to Work law is unconstitutional under the state constitution, even though the Right to Work law was passed as an amendment to the state constitution.

On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma became a Right to Work state when voters enacted State Question 695, a constitutional amendment which bans the widespread practice of forcing workers to join an unwanted union or pay any union dues as a condition of employment. Since Right to Work took effect in Oklahoma, the state has led the nation in creation of new jobs – despite a struggling American economy.

Washington, DC (June 16, 2003) – Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU), the nation’s third largest professional teacher association, will hold its 28th annual meeting at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia, on June 17-18.

CEAFU is an independent teachers organization dedicated to ending forced unionism in education. In past years, the conference has been addressed by Senator Lamar Alexander, and Congressman J.C. Watts.

The press will be welcome to attend the following events during the conference, with the schedule subject to change:

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

• 11:15-12:30 Milton Chappell, National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation, “Implications of Otto v. Pennsylvania State Education Association and other Ongoing Legal Battles.”
• 2:00 Mrs. Lori Yaklin, Senior Advisor on Family Educational Rights, US Dept. of Education, “Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.”

Wednesday, June 18

• 8:00 – 10:00 WendyW. Scott (invited), CAE, Association & Board Consulting Services, “From Boomers to Millennials: Membership Recruitment and Retention Strategies for the Next Generation of Association Members.”
• 10:00 – 12:00 Mike Antonucci, Director, Education Intelligence Agency, “Public Education Research, Analysis and Investigations.”
• 1:00 – 1:30 Charlene Haar, President, Education Policy Institute, “The PTA and NEA Connection.”
• 1:30 – 2:30 Tracey Bailey, 1993 National Teacher of the Year, National Projects Manager, Association of American Educators (AAE), “Equal Access: AAE’s Experience in Kansas.”
• 2:00 – 3:00 David Thompson, Esq., Senior Labor Counsel, United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, “Defining Unions in Education and the Role of Financial Disclosure.”

For more information on this event, please contact Justin Hakes at (703) 770-3374.

San Diego, Calif. (June 16, 2003) — Responding to charges filed by an employee of the City of San Diego, a California Public Employment Relations Board (CPERB) Administrative Law Judge has ordered the San Diego Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA) union to stop discriminating against non-union members by illegally withholding benefits.

Enjoying free legal assistance from attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Tanya DuLaney originally filed charges in March 2002, after MEA union officials withheld dental and eye care coverage from all non-union employees. The MEA union officials’ actions violated several California statutes that are intended to protect an employee’s right to abstain from membership and that require union officials to represent employees fairly.

The scheme, part of the Memorandum of Understanding between the union and the city, was designed to pressure employees into signing up as formal union members, thereby causing them to give up certain rights, including the ability to refrain from funding union political activities.

“This prosecution is a small step towards protecting independent workers who routinely suffer discrimination at the hands of California government union bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, as long as union officials are given a monopoly on representing employees and other compulsory unionism privileges, this abuse will continue to be prevalent.”

The labor board judge has ordered city and MEA union officials to form a benefits plan that does not interfere with workers’ rights to remain independent of union representation, and the city must post a notice informing workers of the CPERB decision.

With the support of Governor Gray Davis over the past five years, government union officials have seized control over much of California’s economy and workforce. For example, Davis has signed several laws that require hundreds of thousands of teachers and other public employees to pay union dues as a job condition.

Detroit, Mich. (June 13, 2003) – Facing stiff opposition from workers at a major Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) facility in Athens, Tennessee, United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers have abandoned current efforts to impose union representation. According to National Right to Work Foundation sources, union operatives only obtained signatures from 10 percent of the employees at the plant.

Last year, pressured by UAW officials, crippling strikes, and the “Big Three” auto makers, JCI signed a so-called “neutrality agreement” that requires the major supplier to assist substantially in efforts to unionize the employees of its 26 non-union facilities across America. This effort includes “captive audience” speeches, waiver of secret ballot elections, and the turnover of employees’ personal information to the UAW.

Nevertheless, the Athens JCI workers were reported to be openly hostile to any notion of unionization. In meetings JCI conducted, employees even donned homemade t-shirts saying “UAW-Union Ain’t Wanted.”

While the Athens JCI employees’ repudiation in recent days is a setback to the UAW union’s ongoing efforts to expand control over workers employed by auto industry suppliers, the union is rolling out its program at other JCI facilities as well as those of other companies, such as Magna-Donnelly, and Freightliner.

“Since employees are increasingly rejecting union membership when given a choice through secret ballot elections, Big Labor is now enlisting companies to help bully workers into accepting compulsory unionism,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, which is providing free legal assistance to employees of JCI and other companies who are concerned that their freedom of association is in jeopardy.

As part of the “neutrality agreement” union organizers were given full access to non-union employees’ personal information and company facilities. After obtaining employees’ names, addresses, and phone numbers, union organizers conducted home visits and other initiatives to obtain signatures on union authorization cards. Workers have reported harassment from union officials both on and off the job.

Also under the JCI-UAW “neutrality agreement,” non-union employees have been forced to attend “captive audience” speeches in which they are told that, if they do not support the union’s organizing effort, they could risk losing potential job opportunities.

As part of the agreement, JCI workers are denied the ability to reject unionization through a secret ballot election, and union operatives are allowed to sign up workers under a “card check” authorization scheme. Had UAW officials been able sign up a majority of the workers at the Athens plant, then JCI would have declared the union as the exclusive representative of all the workers, even those who did not sign a card. However, the workers now report that UAW operatives have packed their bags and left the Athens plant.

Orlando, FL (June 10, 2003) — A three-year religious liberty battle and federal civil rights lawsuit between an individual employee and the International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 610 has come to an end according to court records.

Robert Beers, an employee at Lockheed Martin’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station facility, faced threats by union officials that he would be fired from his job (and lose his health insurance while his teenage son was in cancer treatment) unless he paid fees to a union that he believed is deeply involved in activities that violate his sincerely held religious convictions.

After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced its agreement that the union had violated federal law, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the federal suit on Beers’ behalf in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against IAM Local 610.

“For years IAM union officials have been unfairly persecuting Robert Beers because he put his faith ahead of their radical agenda,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “No one should be forced to sacrifice their faith in order to keep their job.”

Beers’ sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from supporting the union’s militant ideological agenda, particularly its support for abortion and homosexuality, which he believes are forbidden by the Bible. He asserted his right as a religious objector under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to refrain from union activities and withhold the payment of union dues, offering instead to send his union dues to a mutually agreed-upon charity.

Union officials refused his request and wrote Beers they would have him fired from his job.

Beers originally filed the religious discrimination charges against the union in the fall of 2000 with the EEOC. The EEOC found in his favor and attempted to persuade the union’s officials to agree to a settlement. However, IAM Local 610’s lawyers thumbed their noses at the EEOC offer and continued to oppose Beers’ religious objection, forcing him to file suit in federal court.

When contacted, Beers reported that he has now been provided a religious accommodation by the union. That accommodation is that he is not required to support the union.

Even though Florida has a Right to Work law allowing employees to cut off dues payments to unwanted unions, Cape Canaveral is considered a “federal enclave” subject to provisions in federal labor law granting union officials the power to collect union dues from non-religious objectors as a job condition.

Honolulu, Hawaii (June 9, 2003) — In response to a federal civil rights complaint brought by attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has ordering the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly (UHPA) union to stop collecting agency fees from non-union members.

The injunction comes in a federal class-action lawsuit, Swanson v. UHPA, originally filed last August on behalf of Sandra Swanson, an instructor at Maui Community College. In January, the federal lawsuit was certified as a class action, allowing 625 non-union members of the University of Hawaii to challenge the money confiscated for politics and other activities by UHPA union officials.

Judge Helen Gillmore issued the injunction, which prevents the UHPA from collecting agency fees from all non-union members of the University of Hawaii until the union officials can prove they are not spending non-members’ agency fees on activities not directly related to collective bargaining.

“For years UHPA union officials have been trying to get away with hiding how they spend teachers’ money,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This injunction is a step toward getting them to shape up and start respecting teachers’ rights.”

Since August 2000, the UHPA and its national affiliate, the National Education Association (NEA), have demanded that all non-members pay an agency fee equal to the cost of full union dues. The union hierarchy never observed employees’ due process rights, including failing to provide an independent audit of the union’s books and records to ensure that objecting employees are not subsidizing non-collective bargaining activities.

Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, union officials must provide independently audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures made from forced union dues seized from teachers who have chosen to refrain from union membership.

According to the constitutional protections construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won decisions of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, the union may only collect compulsory dues that are spent on collective bargaining activity. Politics, lobbying, organizing, public relations, and other non-bargaining activities are explicitly non-chargeable to objecting employees who have exercised their right to refrain from union membership.