Oral arguments begin in Friedrichs, a case that builds on Foundation Supreme Court precedents to challenge forced dues for civil servants

Washington, DC (January 10, 2016) – Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement regarding oral arguments in Friedrichs, a case brought by California public school teachers that challenges the constitutionality of mandatory union dues:

“For too long, union officials have been allowed to force teachers and other public employees to pay money to a union they don’t support just to work for their own government. Our hope is that the case the Supreme Court hears today will end this injustice once and for all.

“In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the United States Supreme Court is presented with a unique opportunity to end forced union dues in the public sector. In Harris v. Quinn and Knox v. SEIU – two recent, Foundation-won precedents – the High Court suggested that it was time to revisit the constitutionality of forcing civil servants to pay dues to unions they don’t belong to or support. We expect that the Court will follow through on those opinions and free public employees across the country from the burden of mandatory union dues.

“Drawing on decades of experience in the field of labor law, Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs and thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both sides. Our litigators believe that the merits of the arguments in Friedrichs clearly favor the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

“Whatever the outcome in Friedrichs, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist employees whose rights have been violated by forced unionism. As we have since our founding in 1968, we will continue to work toward the day when no employee is forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.”

Foundation experts are available to comment on the Friedrichs case and any other related issues. For more information, contact Will Collins at (703) 770-3317 or via email at [email protected].

Lawsuit was filed by nonunion care providers who are forced to accept union bargaining over their caregiving practices

Boston, MA (January 5, 2016) – Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hear a lawsuit brought by Kathleen D’Agostino and eight other caregivers challenging a law that requires all Massachusetts family childcare providers to accept union “representation” over their caregiving practices. The nine plaintiffs are receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

D’Agostino and her co-plaintiffs seek to halt implementation of a state law that designates SEIU Local 509 as the exclusive bargaining agent for thousands of Massachusetts homecare providers, including many who have no interest in joining or associating with the union. The current arrangement allows union officials to negotiate over providers’ caregiving practices and the subsidies low-income families receive from the state for childcare-related expenses. The providers are either small business owners or family members caring for relatives’ children.

Foundation attorneys argue that this arrangement violates the providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition their government by foisting union bargaining on those who have interest in joining or supporting the SEIU.

The providers’ lawsuit builds on the Foundation’s 2014 Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn, which outlawed the collection of mandatory union dues from home-based caregivers. Prior to that decision, Massachusetts law empowered union officials to collect forced dues from all home childcare providers. Foundation attorneys contend that the Harris precedent suggests that caregivers should also be free from the burden of accepting an unwanted union’s bargaining.

Foundation staff attorneys are helping home and childcare providers challenge similar schemes in Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.

“Massachusetts childcare providers should not be forced to associate with a union they do not belong to or support,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope the Court of Appeals will build on the National Right to Work Foundation’s landmark Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn to protect the rights of nonunion caregivers.”

The NRTW Foundation issues Special Legal Notice to Seattle-based Independent Drivers who may soon be required to pay union dues or fees to work with ridesharing companies

Springfield, VA (December 14, 2015) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has issued this special legal notice to all Seattle-area independent, for-hire drivers, alerting them to an impending threat to their workplace freedom.

Acting at the behest of Teamsters and other union officials, the Seattle City Council has just passed a bill that targets independent drivers, such as those who contract with Uber and Lyft, for mandatory unionization. The bill authorizes unionization through a coercive and unreliable card check drive and allows union officials to make payment of union dues or fees mandatory, even for drivers who oppose union representation.

The newly enacted bill also requires that for-hire ridesharing companies turn over drivers’ personal information (including home and email addresses, and phone numbers) to union officials seeking to start an organizing campaign, and even allows union officials to skip any secret ballot election to determine driver support for the union, instead relying on the abuse-prone card check process.

All independent drivers in the Seattle area who value their independence, and oppose being forced to submit to mandatory union representation and forced union dues, may contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for free legal assistance and for more information about their rights and legal options.

Drivers may contact a Foundation staff attorney toll free at 1-800-336-3600, or via email to [email protected], or by clicking here.

“Big Labor union bosses see independent drivers as prime targets for an expansion of their forced-unionism power,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This legally-dubious scheme will require that in order to keep his or her job, a for-hire driver must pay tribute to a union boss and is part of Big Labor’s nationwide strategy to impose forced union dues requirements on as many Americans as possible.”

“It is outrageous that drivers trying to support their families will have to fork over part of their earnings just for the privilege of driving in Seattle,” added Mix. “This bill is a violation of drivers’ fundamental First Amendment right to freedom of association; the National Right to Work Foundation will proudly offer free legal aid to drivers opposed to this violation of their rights.”

NLRB and union lawyers sought to nullify workers’ decision to get rid of unwanted union

Chicago, IL (December 3, 2015) – United States District Court Judge Amy J. St. Eve has just denied a petition by the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and United Steelworkers (USW) union lawyers to force the USW back into a Franklin Park workplace after a majority of employees decided to remove the union. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys represented Arlington Metals employee Brandon DeLaCruz and 20 of his co-workers in a federal court injunction hearing and filed an amicus brief affirming the employees’ opposition to the union’s continued presence.

Unwilling to accept the employees’ verdict, USW officials asked the Obama NLRB to seek an injunction to nullify the results of a 2014 decertification drive, in which 16 out of 26 employees at Arlington Metals’ Franklin Park facility successfully petitioned to remove the union from their workplace.

In September 2014, USW lawyers filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB in an attempt to nullify the employees’ petition and force the union back into their workplace. The NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint seeking to require the company to restore the union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent, and the full NLRB in Washington authorized the filing of a petition for an injunction to immediately reinstate union officials’ workplace privileges.

Although the judge’s decision forecloses the possibility of immediately restoring union officials’ bargaining privileges, DeLaCruz and his coworkers can still be pushed back into union ranks if the full NLRB later upholds the union’s unfair labor practice charges.

If the federal judge had issued the NLRB’s requested injunction, all Arlington Metals employees at the Franklin Park facility would have been immediately forced to accept unwanted Steelworkers “representation.” Union officials would have been empowered to dictate workers’ wages and working conditions, and likely would have demanded forced dues from all employees at the facility.

In November 2015, the federal judge allowed DeLaCruz to file an amicus curiae brief opposing the NLRB and the union’s petition. That brief urged the Court to deny the injunction because a majority of employees continue to oppose the USW. Although the NLRB unsuccessfully tried to block DeLaCruz from even submitting his brief, approximately 20 of his co-workers joined his effort and sought legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

“This story is all too familiar,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Obama NLRB will go to great lengths to keep union bosses in power, even in the face of overwhelming employee opposition. For now, these workers are free from the burden of unwanted union representation and the specter of being forced to pay dues to an organization they do not support. But it shouldn’t take years of legal procedures to get rid of one stubborn union.”

“Instead of actively hindering their efforts, the NLRB should respect the wishes of employees who wish remove unwanted union bosses,” added Mix.

Threatened with employment termination for not joining union, Michigan worker files federal charges against union to protect her rights

Constantine, Michigan (November 30, 2015) – A pharmacist from Michigan has filed, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW) Local 951 union.

Laura Fries works as a certified pharmacy technician at a Rite Aid pharmacy in Sturgis, Michigan. Rite Aid has a monopoly bargaining agreement with UFCW Local 951. She filed the NLRB charges after a Local 951 representative told her that union membership is required as a condition of employment, coercing her into joining the union.

Local 951’s monopoly bargaining agreement was entered into before Michigan’s recently enacted Right to Work law took effect. This means that Fries can be forced to pay an “agency fee” to Local 951, but federal law protects her right to refrain from full union membership and from paying for union political activity.

On November 2, 2015, Fries was told by a union representative that she would be fired unless she joined Local 951. Fries then signed the union membership and dues checkoff authorization forms under duress, adding the phrase “did not want to join.”

When Fries called Local 951’s office later that day, another union representative informed her that she had been wrongfully told that union membership is required for employment. However, this union representative also said that Fries would have to send a letter stating her desire to refrain from union membership, and informed Fries she owed back union dues from January 2015, when her employment began. November 2 was the first time Fries had ever been told that she must pay union dues as a condition of employment and owed back dues.

On November 3, Local 951 acknowledged receipt of Fries’ letter stating she had never wanted to join the union, and wished to exercise her right to resign union membership. However, Local 951 did not indicate whether Fries’ resignation had been accepted. Local 951 also failed to provide any further information about what “back dues” Fries allegedly owed, and did not inform Fries how she could avoid paying for Local 951’s political and other nonbargaining activity, despite Local 951’s legal obligation to provide that information.

Fries’ employer began deducting union dues from her paychecks in November. The NLRB’s Regional Office in Detroit will now investigate the charge.

“Union bosses apparently will stop at nothing to trick and deceive workers into joining their forced-dues funded ranks,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Clearly, although Michigan is now a Right to Work state, workers can still be victims of union boss’ intimidation, deception and outright illegal activity. The National Right to Work Foundation is ready to fight for Laura until she is no longer subject to workplace abuse at the hands of Local 951 union bosses.”

Employee Files Federal Charges after Teamster Officials Threaten Workers Who Seek to Vote Union Out

Santa Cruz, CA (November 20, 2015) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local Threshold Enterprises employee has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 912 union. Threshold employee Hector Garcia states that union officials threatened to have workers fired for voting to remove the Teamsters.

A union decertification election is scheduled for November 23 and 24 at Garcia’s workplace to determine whether Teamster officials will continue to collect mandatory union dues and bargain over wages and working conditions for all Threshold employees. In the months leading up to the election, union officials have repeatedly harassed independent-minded employees to discourage them from voting against the union.

Local 912 is currently the monopoly bargaining agent for all Threshold employees in Garcia’s workplace. Because California lacks a Right to Work law, this means that Teamster officials are legally empowered to collect mandatory union dues or fees from all workers, including those who oppose the union’s presence.

Garcia’s charges follow similar allegations leveled by his coworker, Enriqueta Morales, in September 2015. Morales also filed federal charges after Teamster officials threatened her job for gathering signatures for a petition to remove the union. Both Garcia and Morales’ charges contend that other employees have faced harassment and intimidation from Teamster operatives for opposing the union’s presence.

Garcia and Morales’ charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency responsible for administering private-sector labor law.

“It’s outrageous that union officials are resorting to harassment and intimidation to hold onto their forced-dues powers over workers,” said Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should be free to vote their consciences without interference from Teamster goons. The National Right to Work Foundation stands ready to defend the rights of any victims of union boss harassment.”

UNITE-HERE officials refusing to comply with Supreme Court protections for nonunion employees wanting to refrain subsidizing union politics

New Haven, CT (November 20, 2015) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Yale University employees have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the UNITE HERE Local 34 union. The charges state that Local 34 union officials failed to comply with United States Supreme Court-mandated procedures regarding union financial disclosures for forced fees charged to nonmembers.

Christopher Fiorillo and Gennifer Baker, through their Foundation staff attorney, filed the charges with the NLRB on Monday. They both work in the Yale University library, and had been full dues-paying union members of Local 34 since 1999, when both workers were first employed at Yale. However, in October of 2015, Fiorillo and Baker resigned their union membership and informed union officials that they would pay the reduced “agency fee” that only covers activities related to workplace bargaining.

In Connecticut and other states without Right to Work laws, nonunion employees can be forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, applying the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Beck v. Communication Workers of America, the NLRB has ruled that nonunion, private sector employees are due certain procedural protections of their right to refrain from paying dues or fees for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as union political activism.

One of the Beck procedures requires that union officials provide independently audited financial disclosure to all nonunion workers paying the reduced fee. Local 34 officials provided a breakdown for Local 34; however, they failed to provide a breakdown for any of three affiliated unions: UNITE HERE International, the Connecticut State AFL-CIO and the New Haven Labor Council.

The charges will now be investigated by the NLRB’s regional office in Hartford, Connecticut.

“It’s bad enough that Fiorillo and Baker can be forced to pay a fee to Local 34 to keep their jobs, but it adds insult to injury when union bosses cannot even comply with longstanding Supreme Court precedent before seizing forced dues from nonmember employees.,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Of course, if Connecticut had a Right to Work law, these charges would never have had to be filed in the first place because union dues would be completely voluntary. That’s why it is long past time for Connecticut workers to have Right to Work protections so that no worker can ever be forced to pay dues or fees just to get or keep a job,” continued Mix.

Federal judge to hear from workers opposed to an NLRB scheme to impose a union the workers have already kicked out of their workplace

Chicago, IL (November 12, 2015) – Workers from Franklin Park-based Arlington Metals Corporation are testifying today at a hearing in opposition to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 13’s scheme to force the company to recognize the United Steel Workers (USW) as the monopoly bargaining representative of its workers. The workers, 20 out of approximately 25 total employees, are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Earlier this week, the judge assigned to the case allowed Brandon De La Cruz, an Arlington Metals employee, to submit an amicus curiae brief stating his and other workers’ opposition to the NLRB’s demand that the USW be brought back into the workplace. The NLRB unsuccessfully tried to block De La Cruz from submitting the brief.

Peter Sung Ohr, NLRB Region 13 Regional Director, is seeking an injunction that would force De La Cruz’s employer to recognize the USW as the monopoly bargaining representative for him and his fellow employees.

However, 16 months ago, De La Cruz and a majority of his coworkers (16 out of 26) successfully petitioned Arlington Metals to remove the union from their workplace. After the workers presented their petition, management withdrew recognition of the union as the workers’ bargaining representative, as federal law permits.

USW union officials quickly filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB in an attempt to nullify the workers’ petition and force the union back into the workplace. The NLRB’s General Counsel then issued a complaint seeking to require the company to again recognize the union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

Brandon De La Cruz, through his Foundation attorneys, filed a motion with the Chicago NLRB regional office to intervene in the Board case. Predictably, the NLRB General Counsel opposed the workers’ motion.

The NLRB has now taken the case to federal court seeking an injunction that will force De La Cruz and his co-workers back under unwanted, monopoly USW control.

“Despite a substantial majority of workers saying they do not want union ‘representation,’ the Big Labor-stacked NLRB is pulling out all the stops to protect the USW’s chokehold over these workers,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“Brandon and his co-workers have clearly shown their objection to the union in their workplace. Hopefully, the federal judge will hear this loud and clear from their testimony and deny the NLRB’s injunction. But, regardless of what the judge does, Foundation attorneys will continue to fight for Brandon and his co-workers as long as the NLRB pursues this case,” continued Mix.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys file charges to defend and enforce Michigan’s law protecting public employees from mandatory union dues and fees

Clarkston, Michigan (November 11, 2015) – A computer science teacher in Clarkston, Michigan has filed, with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, unfair labor practice charges with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission after he was told he was required to pay union fees as a condition of employment.

Ron Conwell has worked for Clarkston Community Schools as a computer science teacher since 2001. Upon employment, Conwell joined the workplace union, Clarkston Education Association, which has had successive monopoly bargaining agreements with the school district.

On August 20, 2015, Conwell resigned his union membership as is his right under state law. A short time later, Conwell received a letter stating his resignation had been accepted, but that he would still be required to pay an “agency fee” to Clarkston Education Association as a condition of employment if he wanted to continue teaching at his school.

In December of 2012, Michigan became the 24th Right to Work state when it passed Right to Work laws prohibiting the payment of union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Michigan Right to Work laws grandfathered union forced-fee agreements entered into before the law went into effect. However, the current monopoly bargaining agreement between Clarkston Education Association and Clarkston Community Schools was entered into in September 2015, more than two years after Michigan’s Right to Work Law took effect, and unlawfully still contains a clause requiring union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

In addition, the union and school district entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) before Michigan’s Right to Work law took effect in an attempt to extend the forced-fee requirement. However, per its own terms, the MOA expired on August 31, 2014, the expiration of the successor collective bargaining agreement, to which the MOA referred.

“Union bosses have again blatantly ignored Michigan’s Right to Work law, and violated the rights of employees they claim to represent,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “That Foundation attorneys have had to file more than two dozen cases for workers to enforce Michigan’s Right to Work laws demonstrates that union bosses have no plans to give up their forced dues empire anytime soon.”

“As this case shows, passage of Michigan’s Right to Work law was just the beginning when it comes to ending union boss forced dues demands, which is why the National Right to Work Foundation continues to offer free legal assistance to any Michigan employee seeking to exercise his or her Right to Work,” continued Mix.

Illinois law that imposes union bargaining on nonunion care providers violates their First Amendment rights

Chicago, IL (November 10, 2015) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center, six personal care and childcare providers have filed a lawsuit against the State of Illinois and the SEIU Health Care II union. The plaintiffs are challenging a law that grants SEIU officials exclusive “bargaining” powers with state government for thousands of Illinois caregivers – including many who never joined the union or oppose the union’s presence – over policies related to their homecare practices, as well as a public subsidy their clients receive for caregiving.

The lawsuit follows the Foundation’s landmark 2014 Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn, which was also filed on behalf of several home-based Illinois care providers. That decision prohibited union officials from collecting mandatory dues or fees from home-based caregivers and suggests that providers cannot be forced by state governments to accept exclusive union representation concerning their caregiving practices.

The providers’ lawsuit contends that state law infringes on their First Amendment rights by forcing caregivers to associate with a union they do not wish to join or support. The union’s power to deal with the State of Illinois over caregiving practices also violates the care providers’ right to freely petition their own government.

In recent years, union officials have increasingly targeted home and childcare providers for aggressive organizing campaigns. In Illinois, former Governor Pat Quinn signed a 2009 executive order designating 4,500 individuals who offer in-home care to disabled persons as “public employees” solely for the purpose of unionization. Quinn’s executive order mirrored an earlier directive issue by disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, which designated over 20,000 personal care providers as state workers solely for the purpose of forcing them into union ranks. That executive order was later codified under the state law that is now being challenged by the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Foundation staff attorneys are also helping home and childcare providers challenge similar schemes in Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.

“The government has no right to appoint an ‘exclusive representative’ to speak on citizens’ behalf just because they benefit from a government program,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center public interest law firm, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit. “Under the First Amendment, individuals get to decide for themselves what they will say to the government and who will speak on their behalf. This lawsuit asks the federal courts to strike down this unconstitutional scheme.”

“Home-based caregivers should not be forced to associate with a union they have no interest in joining or supporting,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope this case will build on the Supreme Court’s landmark, Foundation-won Harris decision to protect caregivers’ freedom of association and put a stop to union bosses’ forced homecare unionization schemes.”