In Attempt to Avoid Being Voted Out, PA Steelworkers Union Bosses Secretly ‘Ratify’ Contract Workers Twice Overwhelmingly Rejected
Workers petitioned for election to oust union after first vote against contract, but union boss secretly signed unpopular contract in July anyway to maintain power
Franklin, PA (September 19, 2022) – Workers at Latrobe Specialty Steel’s facility (also known as Carpenter Technology) in Franklin, PA, are fighting Steelworkers union officials’ attempt to trap them under a union contract workers voted down twice. Their effort follows union bosses’ secret “ratification” of the unpopular contract despite telling workers that their votes would determine whether the contract would go into effect. Latrobe Specialty Steel employees are seeking to “decertify,” i.e. vote out, the Steelworkers Union with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Kerry Hunsberger leads an employee push to vote out the Steelworkers union at Latrobe Specialty Steel. Hunsberger’s attorneys filed a brief this week at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) arguing that union officials concocted an improbable contract ratification story to avoid being voted out by the workers they claim to “represent.” The union bosses admit to signing the unpopular contract behind workers’ backs in an attempt to trigger the NLRB’s so-called “contract bar” policy. The “contract bar” arbitrarily immunizes unions from employee decertification votes for up to three years after a contract between union and company officials is finalized.
Steelworkers Union Officials Signed Unpopular Contract to Avoid Being Voted Out by Workers
Latrobe Specialty Steel workers first voted July 25 on the contract drawn up by Steelworkers union officials. The workers soundly rejected the contract, and Hunsberger began collecting employee signatures for a “decertification petition” shortly afterwards. The NLRB will administer a union decertification election among the workers of a facility if the petition contains the signatures of 30% or more of the employees.
According to documents and transcripts filed with the NLRB, when Steelworkers union officials discovered a decertification petition was circulating, they secretly signed the disfavored contract on July 28, without telling the employees or the employer, in an attempt to activate the “contract bar” rule and avoid being voted out.
In their haste to enact the employee-rejected contract to trigger the “contract bar,” union officials didn’t even finalize critical details of the contract like the start and end dates. Even though the union claims this contract was supposedly in effect on July 28, union officials held a new employee ratification vote on August 1, encouraging workers to ratify the contract, but not telling them their “vote” was a meaningless formality because the contract was already signed and in effect.
Hunsberger submitted a valid decertification petition on August 1, just hours before the sham contract vote occurred. As with the previous vote, the workers again lopsidedly rejected the contract. But later that night, union officials suddenly announced to the employer that the contract was already in effect and the ratification vote was a nullity because of the union bosses’ covert signing on July 28. According to the trial transcript, one union boss admitted under oath that the Steelworkers union executes contracts despite employees voting them down, and that he did so in this case and ignored the employees’ vote against the contract “to protect the integrity of the union.” Apparently the Steelworkers bosses’ lust for monopoly bargaining power and compulsory union payments takes precedence over employee democracy.
In fact, the Steelworkers Union’s post-hearing brief openly admits that union officials “executed the contract on July 28 to… pre-empt the decertification petition circulating at the facility” and that the August 1 “vote was only taken as a courtesy to employees [and] was an attempt to obtain their blessing of the contract that the [union officials] had already executed.”
In the same brief union bosses doubled down on their deceptive practices, stating that “the Union’s representations to employees here are irrelevant… and the union was within its discretion to take a vote of its members and was not obligated to abide by the results of such a vote” (emphasis added).
Hunsberger now waits for Regional NLRB officials to decide if union bosses’ ploy to hastily “ratify” an incomplete and unpopular contract over the objections of multiple workers’ votes successfully blocked workers’ statutory right to a decertification vote.
Foundation President: “Contract Bar” Policy Encourages Anti-Democratic Gamesmanship by Union Bosses
Foundation attorneys’ brief defending Hunsberger and her coworkers’ right to vote the union out argues that the contract never took effect due to the lack of a discernible effective date as well as the lack of an employee vote in favor of ratification. The Foundation attorney’s brief argues that Steelworkers officials’ assertions that they entered into a binding contract are “nothing more than a smokescreen, concocted by a desperate and unpopular Union to entrench itself and bar employee free choice” by manipulating the “contract bar.”
“The ‘contract bar’ arbitrarily blocks, often for years, workers’ statutory right under federal law to vote out union officials they oppose. Worse, it encourages union officials to cynically impose a contract at all costs, especially when union bosses know rank-and-file workers would see such a contract as a reason to want to be free of so-called union ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Immunizing union officials from being voted out by the workers they claim to ‘represent’ creates an incentive structure in which union boss power comes first and majority support among workers comes last.”
“This case presents an easy choice for the NLRB: defend the rights of rank-and-file workers or side with Steelworkers union officials who repeatedly misled those workers and twice disregarded their votes simply to protect union power and compulsory dues,” added Mix.
Blue Ridge Parkway Employee Challenges Federal Agency Decision Blocking Right to Vote Out AFGE Union
Employee request for vote to oust union was denied after Federal Labor Relations Authority merged two units without employee consent
Washington, DC (September 9, 2022) – National Park Service (NPS) employee Lauren Labrie has just filed a brief at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), opposing an order blocking her and her coworkers’ right to vote American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union officials out of power.
Her brief, filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges the FLRA’s dismissal of a “union decertification petition” seeking an election to remove the union. Labrie and her colleagues signed the petition after FLRA officials administratively merged their work unit with another without any vote by her and her fellow employees on the new arrangement. Union officials and the FLRA then cited the merger as a reason to block the decertificiation vote the workers requested.
The brief challenges the FLRA’s suspect position that, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act, an employee-requested election to remove a union can be blocked after a union is installed by agency fiat through “unit consolidation.” The only “election bar” authorized by the statute is one for 12 months after employees have voted to install a union by secret ballot, the brief argues.
FLRA “Consolidated” Units at Union Behest, Then Stopped Workers from Voting on Union
Labrie’s brief explains that she and her fellow Blue Ridge Parkway NPS employees were under the control of two different AFGE union locals as of June 2021. AFGE union officials then petitioned to consolidate the two units, and a regional FLRA official approved the move in September 2021 – without giving employees any opportunity to vote on whether they wanted the merger.
In December 2021, the petition to decertify AFGE as the union with control over the workers was filed. The petition was signed by a number of her colleagues sufficient to trigger an FLRA-administered election whether to remove the union. A regional FLRA official dismissed the petition in March 2022, claiming it was blocked by a 12-month “election bar” stemming from the top-down, unilateral consolidation of the work units.
Park Employee’s Brief: Blocking Election Stifles Employees’ Free Choice Rights
Foundation attorneys argue in Labrie’s brief that applying “election bars” after agency-imposed unit consolidations violates federal employees’ free choice rights, which the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act was meant to protect.
“In passing the Statute, Congress’ intent was to promote secret ballot elections and employees’ freedom to choose their representative under the Statute,” the brief says. “Not allowing employees to exercise their free choice because the Authority administratively combined two bargaining units undermines Congress’ goal of promoting the right of employees to select their own agent.”
The brief asks that the FLRA reverse its decision blocking Labrie and her coworkers’ vote and immediately hold an election.
Labrie’s defense of her and her coworkers’ request to decertify the AFGE union comes as Foundation attorneys are aiding private sector workers across the country in defending their right to vote out union officials of whom they disapprove. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for overseeing labor relations in the private sector, has just announced rulemaking to undo Foundation-backed 2020 reforms that make it harder for union officials to stop workers from exercising this right.
“Union officials in both the public and private sectors want to maintain their coercive grip on workplaces across the country, regardless of how many workers oppose their monopoly so-called ‘representation,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Thanks to the Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court precedent, Ms. Labrie and her fellow park employees at least have a First Amendment right to cut off any dues payments to AFGE union bosses they oppose.”
“But the fact that FLRA officials are letting union officials dodge employee-requested decertification votes simply by consolidating units shows the degree to which union power is not a function of rank-and-file support, but a result of the way government policy entrenches union bosses to the detriment of individual workers’ rights,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for Minnesota Nurses Impacted by MNA Strike Threat
Strike would affect up to 15,000 nurses in the Twin Cities and Twin Ports, but healthcare workers have right to rebuff union boss strike demand
Twin Cities, MN (September 8, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for nurses potentially affected by a strike being threatened by Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials at 15 hospital locations in the Twin Cities, Duluth, and Superior Wisconsin. The strike is reportedly scheduled to start September 12, 2022.
Because of the MNA unions’ monopoly power, the strike scheduled by MNA will affect up to 15,000 nurses, impacting the care of countless patients. The Foundation’s legal notice informs nurses of the rights union officials often conceal, including that the nurses have the right not to abandon their patients but instead to continue providing medical care while also working to support their families.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that would likely be imposed by union officials.
“While a strike vote does not mean a strike is imminent, the situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “If a strike occurs, employees have the right under federal labor law to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for you to get informed before you do so.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and to revoke their union dues check-offs. In just the past few months National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted hundreds of Minnesota nurses, many in decertification votes to remove unwanted union “representation.”
Recently, Foundation staff attorneys assisted hundreds of nurses at the Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota. There, nurses voted to remove Minnesota Nurses Association union officials. Union officials attempted to overturn the vote, but failed after Foundation staff attorneys defended the outcome for the nurses before the National Labor Relations Board.
Currently, staff attorneys represent nurses at Mayo Clinic Lake City in Minnesota who seek a vote to free themselves from MNA. Additionally, Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting nurses at four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations in exercising their right to obtain a vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called “representation.”
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization, exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full special notice for the nurses can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/mnastrike2022/
“For decades, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to workers to protect them from Big Labor’s coercive tactics, which are especially common during union boss-instigated strikes,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “Nurses always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing.”
“However, for nurses who choose not to abandon their patients, there are important steps they should take to protect themselves from vindictive union retaliation,” added Mix.
Southern California Lifeguards Petition Supreme Court in Battle Against Scheme Trapping Employees in Union Membership
Scheme prevents lifeguards from ending union membership for four years; Supreme Court petition also filed for CA in-home caregivers suffering similar restriction
Washington, DC (September 7, 2022) – Orange County, CA, lifeguard Jonathan Savas and 20 of his Southern California colleagues have just submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Justices to hear their case challenging California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials’ so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction. The lifeguards are also suing State of California officials for their role in enforcing the restriction.
Savas and his colleagues argue the union-created scheme violates their rights under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. Janus was won by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who also represent Savas and his fellow lifeguards for free in the present case, along with the Freedom Foundation and Mariah Gondeiro of Tyler Bursh, LLP.
Under the “maintenance of membership” requirement, CSLEA union bosses and the State of California force the lifeguards to both remain formal union members and supply full union dues payments to the CSLEA union against their will. Savas and the other plaintiffs sent messages resigning their union memberships and ending dues authorizations back in September 2019, but union officials denied their requests, alleging they must remain full members until 2023 or be fired. Despite Janus, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this requirement does not violate the First Amendment.
Foundation staff attorneys have also just filed a petition for writ of certiorari for Dolores Polk and several other California in-home caregivers, who are challenging a union “escape period” scheme limiting their Janus right to cut off union dues to just a handful of days per year. Although Polk and her fellow in-home caregivers are not public employees, they are still forced by California law to work under the so-called “representation” of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials.
Lifeguards’ Attorneys: ‘Maintenance of Membership’ Requirements Have Been Unconstitutional for Decades
Savas and his fellow lifeguards’ Foundation-provided attorneys argue that the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to strike down “maintenance of membership” requirements does not only contradict Janus’ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even goes against the Supreme Court’s now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.
“If anything, maintenance of membership requirements are more injurious to First Amendment rights because they also compel employees to remain union members over their objection—which infringes on associational rights—and [forces workers] to subsidize union speech” with full dues payments, reads the petition. That exceeds the boundaries set in Abood and includes subsidization of union political activity.
Savas’ petition also slams the Ninth Circuit’s failure to apply the Supreme Court’s “waiver” test to CSLEA’s “maintenance of membership” restriction. Janus dictated that union dues can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee gives a “clear and compelling” waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA union’s dues deductions forms contained only a “vague reference” to the “maintenance of membership” restriction. The Ninth Circuit erroneously believed that was enough to satisfy Janus requirements.
“A vague reference to unspecified limitations in ‘the Unit 7 contract and State law’ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consented” to become and remain union members for four years, the petition says.
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions
The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to overturn cumbersome “maintenance of membership” restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment. “Other states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,” the brief states.
In Polk’s petition, Foundation attorneys also emphasize the importance of striking down similarly anti-Janus “escape periods.” If the Court does not act, reads the petition, “There are few impediments to states and unions including oppressive restrictions in [dues deduction] forms, such as a requirement that individuals cannot stop state dues deductions except during annual ten-day periods,” allowing union officials an effective workaround of the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.
“The Ninth Circuit’s giving a pass to so-called ‘maintenance of membership’ restrictions effectively gives union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That erases not only the protections against all forced dues payments provided by Janus, but even older rulings that forbade union officials from forcing full union membership and payment for union political activities on public workers.”
“The Supreme Court must intervene in Mr. Savas’ case and Ms. Polk’s case to protect public sector workers’ First Amendment rights and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions,” Mix added.
“Public sector employees have been leaving their government employee unions in droves when they learn they have the right to do so,” explained Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Millard. “These California unions are employing tactics to entrap people in the union, forcing them to keep paying dues against their will. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and affirm the First Amendment rights laid out in Janus.”
Workplace Advocacy Groups Urge Americans to Oppose Anti-Worker Freedom Agenda on Labor Day
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2022:
Today, we should remember that Labor Day is about celebrating the determination and ingenuity of America’s workers and the importance of protecting workers’ individual rights. Vital among these is every American worker’s Right to Work: the freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.
Unfortunately, union officials will attempt to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive political ideas, almost all of which involve blatant infringements of the Right to Work. Big Labor and its political allies like Joe Biden claim that workers favor unions and that union officials should be granted nearly unlimited power to sweep workers under union control.
This fiction is false and incredibly damaging to workers’ freedom. The truth is, the average unionized worker is more likely to be involved in an effort to vote out an unpopular union than a non-union worker is to be involved in a campaign to install one. Even so, union officials are making a full-court press both in Congress and at executive agencies to eliminate state Right to Work protections and force millions more workers across the country to pay union bosses just to stay employed, and to make it even harder for workers to vote out a union they don’t want.
Defending worker freedom is a better way for American workers, and the evidence for this is abundant. The last decade saw the number of states that protect Right to Work grow to a majority, and employees have been flocking to Right to Work states to take advantage of the economic opportunity and prosperity supported by Right to Work laws. As of last year, a majority of American workers live in states where the Right to Work is safeguarded.
Right to Work finds support with the vast majority of Americans year after year because it is a common-sense moral principle with clear benefits to workers and their families. In the midst of continued economic uncertainty and unprecedented union power grabs, we have a duty to make sure that workers’ fundamental rights are protected. Let’s remember that this Labor Day and continue to fight for worker freedom.
Southern IL Aluminum Worker Slams IBEW Union with New Federal Charges After Illegal Termination Threat
IBEW union officials threatened to fire worker for failure to pay union fees, even though union contract is invalid
Murphysboro, IL (August 26, 2022) – Penn Aluminum International employee Mary Beck has filed new federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 702 union, stating that union officials threatened to get her fired for failure to pay union fees demanded under a defective contract.
Beck, who is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, has amended charges she hit the union with in June. The original charges stated IBEW union officials unlawfully seized money from her wages without her consent and without proving that a contract mandating such deductions is in effect.
Because Illinois lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, union officials can legally force workers in facilities under union control to pay some union fees just to stay employed. However, union bosses lose this legal privilege if there is no valid monopoly bargaining contract in effect. Under longstanding law, union officials must also gain consent from a worker before they can demand that an employer deduct compulsory fees from a worker’s paycheck.
Beck’s original unfair labor practice charge noted that she sent a letter to IBEW union chiefs and her employer in January 2022 exercising her right to resign her union membership and to stop any union dues deductions from her paychecks that are not required to maintain employment. Her letter also demanded a copy of any contract that gives IBEW officials the power to require dues payments as a condition of employment.
When she received no response, she redelivered this letter by hand in March 2022. In this letter Beck also requested that, if IBEW union officials could produce a valid contract, her dues payments be reduced as per the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In CWA v. Beck the Court ruled that union officials in non-Right to Work states cannot force nonmembers to pay fees for political and other union activities outside the union’s bargaining functions. Union dues were still deducted from her paycheck after this letter.
IBEW Union Bosses Blew Off Worker Requests for Months, Then Threatened Her Termination
Beck’s amended charge states that IBEW union officials didn’t acknowledge her requests until July, when they finally sent a copy of the union contract and ended dues deductions, but still demanded she pay an unspecified amount of union fees to keep her job. The amended charge points out that the contract produced does not contain language that lets IBEW bosses take advantage of their legal privilege to force all employees to pay dues as a condition of employment.
According to the amended charge, the contract also does not “contain the grace period required by Section 8(a)(3)” of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That section of the NLRA requires new employees to be given at least 30 days before being compelled to pay union fees in a workplace under a forced-fees union contract.
Union officials in an August 9 letter threatened to terminate Beck by August 15 if she didn’t pay union fees. “The letter failed to provide Charging Party with the exact amount the Union claims she owes or a reasonable opportunity for her to pay those alleged fees,” Beck’s amended charge says. Both are required by longstanding precedents.
Beck’s new charge argues that the union’s continued deduction of dues after her March letter and demands for union fees without a valid contract in place violate her rights under the NLRA.
“IBEW bosses threatening to upend Ms. Beck’s career for failure to pay fees to which the union’s sloppily-written contract doesn’t even entitle them is terrible malfeasance to be sure, but a correctly written contract certainly wouldn’t solve the problem,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The real injustice is that millions of workers across the country, Ms. Beck included, can be forced to pay anything to a union hierarchy just to keep their jobs.”
“Ultimately, every worker in America deserves the protection of a Right to Work law, not only so workers are shielded from having to choose between their jobs and funding a union they oppose, but also because when dues are fully voluntary union officials must prove their worth to workers before earning their financial support,” Mix added.
Freight Company Worker Wins More Than $10,500 for Being Illegally Fired for Not Joining Teamsters Union
Back pay award ends case against employer, federal charge against union for instigating illegal termination still under NLRB investigation
Jackson, MN (August 25, 2022) – Jannie Potgieter, who was a freight employee at industrial park USF Holland in Jackson, Minnesota, filed federal charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 union and his employer in May for illegally terminating him for exercising his right not be a union member. Now Mr. Potgieter has received approximately $10,512 in back pay from USF Holland in exchange for dropping the charge against the company. The charge against the union for union officials’ role in the illegal termination is still pending.
Mr. Potgieter’s charges were filed on May 27, 2022, at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 18 with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Fountain staff attorneys. The charges stated that on May 18, 2022, a USF Holland manager fired Mr. Potgieter because he exercised his rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) U.S. Supreme Court precedent not to join the union.
In the non-NLRB settlement with USF Holland, Mr. Potgieter agreed to withdraw his unfair labor charge in exchange for the back pay plus employer-provided training for management about workers’ Beck rights and a prohibition on firing workers who refuse to join a union. The NLRB Regional Director approved the settlement, but continues to investigate the charge against Teamsters Local 120.
Because Minnesota lacks Right to Work protections for private sector employees, unions can force them to pay union fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. However, under Beck, a U.S. Supreme Court decision won by Foundation staff attorneys, formal union membership cannot be required, nor can payment of the part of dues used for non-bargaining expenditures like union political activities. In contrast, in the 27 states with Right to Work protections, union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.
“Mr. Potgieter’s illegal firing for exercising his basic rights shows why Minnesota workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to ensure all union membership and financial support is strictly voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re glad USF Holland has belatedly taken responsibility for its role, union bullies must also be held accountable for instigating this blatantly illegal firing.”
“With Labor Day right around the corner, this case serves as a reminder that being pro-worker must mean rejecting compulsion and allowing each and every working American the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to spend their hard-earned paycheck on union dues,” added Mix.
National Employee Freedom Week: Time to Build on Janus by Ending Injustice of Forced Union Monopoly ‘Representation’
Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory protects public workers’ right not to fund union they oppose, but union officials can still ‘speak for’ dissident workers
Washington, DC (August 19, 2022) – National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement in recognition of National Employee Freedom Week:
“On this week, we remind all independent-minded American educators and public sector workers that the First Amendment forbids union officials from getting employees fired merely for refusal to join or fund a union that pushes divisive politics, negotiates lousy contracts, or simply acts against worker interests.
“However, while the Foundation’s 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME protects public workers’ ability to stop subsidizing union activities they oppose, much more needs to be done to fully defend these employees’ free association rights. Public sector union officials in the vast majority of states still wield government-granted monopoly ‘representation’ power over workers who don’t want and never asked for a union, and the Foundation is currently fighting alongside workers who oppose their voices being stifled by this coercive, unconstitutional privilege.”
National Employee Freedom Week is dedicated to educating American public teachers and other public sector employees that they have a right to refuse to fund or join unions in their workplace that do not serve their interests. Public employees are also advised this week that, although union bosses don’t want them to know it, many non-union voluntary options exist to provide liability insurance and other benefits that union officials tout as a reason to join a union, even though union membership means paying for union political activities that many workers oppose. In fact, many non-union options for liability insurance, especially for teachers, provide better coverage than union options at far less cost to teachers.
In the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys, the Justices ruled that public employees have a First Amendment right to cut off dues to an unwanted union, and also recognized that union dues could only be deducted from a public sector employee’s paycheck with their explicit consent. Even today, many union officials refuse to abide by this limit on their coercive power, resulting in numerous ongoing lawsuits by Foundation staff attorneys seeking to enforce workers’ Janus rights.
In the Janus decision, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, additionally explained that union monopoly “representation” power in the public sector is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts,” perhaps indicating an interest from the High Court in striking down this coercive privilege in the future.
NLRB Certifies Mankato Mayo Clinic Nurses’ Vote to Oust MNA Union Officials, Rejects Union Boss Attempt to Overturn Vote
Nurses now free of both unwanted union monopoly ‘representation’ and forced union fee demands
Mankato, MN (August 18, 2022) – Mayo Clinic nurses’ vote to oust unwanted Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials from their workplace has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in a decision that also rejected two union objections to the election. The nurses voted 213-181 in July to remove the MNA as their monopoly “representative.” Union officials attempted to not only overturn the result, but to prohibit the workers from even holding another decertificiation vote.
Nurse Brittany Burgess filed a petition in June with Region 18 of the NLRB for more than 200 of her coworkers requesting the election. She did so with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Minnesota is not a Right to Work state, meaning Burgess and the nurses voting in the election at Mayo Clinic had been forced to pay fees to MNA union bosses they opposed just to keep their jobs. Now that the NLRB has certified the “decertification election” results, the nurses are free of both union officials’ forced-fee demands and the union’s control over their terms and conditions of employment.
NLRB Ruling Rejects Union Boss Objections to Election Entirely
NLRB Region 18’s decision and order certifying the vote rejected both arguments from MNA union officials that the vote should be overturned. Union officials claimed a sample ballot circulated by workers opposed to the union didn’t contain legally-required disclaimers about the neutrality of the NLRB. The officials also made vague allegations that other conduct somehow improperly swayed the employees’ choice.
The NLRB election certification order explains that a reviewed photo of the sample ballot “clearly contains the disclaimer language.” The order also declares that the union’s objection to other conduct is not only too “nonspecific” to be meet the NLRB’s standards, but further states that the conduct it alludes to would not rise to the level of invalidating an employee vote anyway.
Though MNA union officials’ attempt to upend the Mayo Clinic vote was particularly vacuous, Burgess and her coworkers were guarded from even more arbitrary union delays thanks to Foundation-advocated reforms to union decertification rules adopted by the NLRB in 2020. Before the reforms, union officials could file “blocking charges” to stop a vote to oust a union from even commencing. Such charges often contained allegations of employer conduct that were both unproven and unrelated to the employees’ desire to get rid of the union.
Unfortunately, the Biden NLRB announced in June it was initiating rulemaking to overturn those reforms and make it easier for union officials to block decertification votes, no matter how many rank-and-file workers request a vote.
Foundation Assisting Nurses at Other MN Medical Facilities to Exercise Right to Vote Out Unions
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have recently assisted other workers in numerous successful decertification efforts. Just this month, Foundation-backed workers at Mayo Clinic’s location in St. James, MN, removed American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 65 from their hospital.
Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting nurses at four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations with obtaining a vote to remove Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses from their facilities. Because the NLRB has made the decertification process unnecessarily complicated, workers often need to turn to Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in navigating the process.
“These nurses worked hard to exercise their right to remove a union they didn’t feel represented their interests, and Foundation staff attorneys were happy to help them,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “MNA union officials’ arbitrary attempt to block the certification of the nurses’ will demonstrates the ridiculous charades union officials often pull just to keep siphoning money from workers who don’t want them anymore.”
“The situation also puts into stark relief the risk the Biden NLRB is putting independent-minded workers in by attempting to reverse the recent Election Protection reforms. Eliminating the reforms will make it easier for union bosses to trap workers in forced-dues union ranks, even when a majority of workers oppose the union’s so-called ‘representation,’” Mix added.
King Soopers Workers Successfully Challenge Illegal UFCW Union Strike Fines with National Right to Work Legal Aid
UFCW union bosses begin dropping illegal fines against workers, but union still faces investigation on federal charges
Denver, CO (August 15, 2022) – Grocery store workers at King Soopers are continuing to battle, and win, against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union officials’ illegal attempts to fine workers for exercising their right to work during a January UFCW strike action. While the union remains under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a series of charges filed by workers with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, several workers have already successfully challenged thousands of dollars in union fines.
In June and July three King Soopers workers, Nick Hall, Marcelo Ruybal and Hope Schaefer, filed federal charges against UFCW in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine the workers, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. The workers, whom union bosses are threatening to fine $812, $3,800, and $3,897.36 respectively, stated in their charges that the fines were illegal because the workers were not voluntary union members, and therefore not legally subject to internal union fines for working during the UFCW boss-ordered 10-day strike.
All three NLRB charges are still being investigated by NLRB Region 27 based in Denver.
In Schaefer’s case the union had previously even acknowledged in a 2011 letter that she was not a UFCW union member. However, although the union know she had not been a union member for more than a decade, UFCW union officials still threatened her with the nearly $4,000 fine.
In Hall’s case, the union recently backed down, rescinding the union’s illegal fine threat in a letter dated July 27, essentially acknowledging that it broke federal law. Other workers have also successfully challenged union boss fine threats following the January strike. With free legal representation from Foundation staff attorneys, worker Yen Chan challenged the union’s authority to issue a $3,552.48 fine, with union officials backing down rather than face further legal action.
At least two other King Soopers workers also successfully challenged thousands of dollars in UFCW strike fines using information provided by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. Any worker facing such fines can still request free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation by calling 1-800-336-3600 or through the Foundation’s website: www.nrtw.org/free-legal-aid
“King Soopers workers are already beating back illegal fines levied by UFCW union officials, even as union officials are still under investigation by the NLRB for three unfair labor practice charges,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses were caught red-handed in Nick Hall’s case which is why we’re already seeing them back down, but it shouldn’t take the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys just to force union bullies to abide by federal law and cease violating the rights of rank-and-file workers.”
