Flight Attendant Defends Win Against Union, Southwest, for Illegal Firing
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union and airline seek to overturn District Court ruling & verdict targeting discriminatory union firing
Despite going head-to-head with the well-funded legal teams of Southwest Airlines and the TWU union, Charlene Carter and her Foundation legal team led by staff attorney Matt Gilliam (right) have fought — and won — crucial victories in her case.
NEW ORLEANS, LA – In 2017, Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter filed her lawsuit against the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and Southwest Airlines for their respective roles in her termination after she spoke out against the TWU’s political activities.
Now, seven years later, despite winning a multimillion dollar jury verdict and a ruling ordering that she get her job back after the company’s and union’s efforts to fire her, Carter’s battle remains ongoing. Recently, Foundation staff attorneys were at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments to defend her District Court victory against appeals by TWU and Southwest.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Yet rather than comply with the jury’s decision and a District Court order, Southwest and TWU union bosses have decided to attempt to defend their blatant retaliation against a vocal union critic.”
Foundation Attorney: Evidence Shows Carter Was Fired Over Religious Exercise
During oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit, which took place before a three-judge panel this June, Foundation staff attorney Matt Gilliam rebutted specious union claims that there was no direct evidence that Carter’s religious beliefs played any role in the decision to fire her.
Gilliam told the panel that a Southwest agent “specifically admitted that he considered Carter’s religious beliefs in his termination decision” and reminded the judges that, under Title VII, an employee’s religious beliefs “can’t be any factor” in making such a decision.
“Southwest just admitted to this court that they fired her because of conduct. Well, what was the conduct? It was religious conduct,” said Gilliam.
Carter’s Story Reveals Pro-Union Boss Bias of Federal Labor Law
Carter resigned from union membership in 2013 but was still forced to pay fees to TWU Local 556 as a condition of her employment. The Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal law that governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industries, permits firing employees who refuse to pay union fees and preempts the protections that state Right to Work laws provide.
However, the RLA does protect employees’ rights to resign from union membership. It also has free speech protections that cover the right to speak out against a union and its leadership and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.
In January 2017, Carter learned that then-TWU Local 556 President Audrey Stone and other Local 556 officials used union dues to attend the Women’s March in Washington, DC, which was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, an activist group she deeply opposed.
Carter, a vocal critic of Stone and the union, sent private Facebook messages to Stone challenging the union’s support for ideological positions that were contrary to Carter’s beliefs and expressing support for a recall effort that would remove Stone from power. Carter also sent Stone a message emphasizing her commitment to a National Right to Work law after the union had sent an email to employees telling them to oppose Right to Work.
After a meeting at which Southwest officials confronted Carter about private Facebook messages protesting the union’s positions, the company fired Carter. In 2017, Carter filed her federal lawsuit challenging the firing as a clear violation of her rights under two federal laws. She maintained that she lost her job because of her religious beliefs and her criticism of union officials’ spending employees’ dues and fees on ideological causes.
Ultimately, after a six-day July 2022 trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Carter and her Foundation staff attorneys. During the trial, Foundation attorneys unearthed and introduced bombshell email communications showing TWU union militants advocated for “targeted assassinations” of union dissidents.
“We are proud to defend Ms. Carter throughout this prolonged legal case to vindicate her rights,” stated Messenger. “However, her case should prompt policymakers to pare back union bosses’ coercive, government-granted powers over workers. Even if Charlene attains total victory in her case, the RLA will still force her and airline employees across the country to pay money to union officials as a condition of keeping their jobs, which is why policy change is needed.”
Foundation Exposes Union Boss Coercion & Discrimination Before Congress
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
U.S. House relies on Foundation for insight on ‘card check’ and forced-dues-for-politics
“The Law Has Failed Me”: This was MIT Ph.D. student Will Sussman’s response when asked by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) whether current federal labor law protects union dissenters. Sussman recommended nationwide Right to Work protections.
WASHINGTON, DC – Within the past few months, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and recipients of free Foundation legal aid have appeared multiple times before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, revealing the anti-freedom tactics union bosses use to sweep workers under their power and prop up their radical political agenda.
In May, U.S. House members called Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger as an expert witness in a hearing named “Big Labor Lies: Exposing Union Tactics to undermine Free and Fair Elections.” The hearing was designed to probe how current federal labor policies are letting union bosses deprive American workers of even the basic protection of a secret ballot election when union organizers target their workplace for monopoly unionization.
In July, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ph.D. student Will Sussman, who received free Foundation legal aid in filing federal anti-discrimination charges against union bosses on his campus, appeared before the U.S. House to recount his battle against MIT Graduate Student Union (GSUUE) officials. GSU union bosses demanded Sussman, who is Jewish, fund union activities despite his repeated and forceful objections to the union’s anti-Israel pursuits.
The July hearing, called “Confronting Union Antisemitism: Protecting Workers from Big Labor Abuses,” also featured testimony from veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, who is providing free legal representation to Sussman and other MIT graduate students challenging forced-dues demands from GSU.
“Whether it’s union officials seizing power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote, or using graduate students’ money to fuel radical protests and other unrest on college campuses, these outrageous activities all have one thing in common — union boss privileges heavily ingrained in federal labor law,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “No organization in the country has been more active than the Foundation in countering these coercive practices on behalf of rank-and-file workers.
“As the Biden Administration ramps up its attacks on worker freedom, we are honored and gratified that U.S. representatives look to Foundation attorneys and Foundation-backed workers for perspectives on how to defend worker freedom.”
Foundation Legal Director: ‘Card Check’ Permits Union Boss Tyranny
At its hearing in May, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce listened to William Messenger testify regarding union bosses’ two favorite tactics for gaining power: “card check” drives and censorship of speech critical of the union.
Card check is a process that lets union bosses gain power in a workplace without giving employees a chance to vote in secret on whether they want a union. Union officials can gang up on workers and even harass them to obtain signatures on union authorization cards, which are later counted as “votes” for the union. This process opens workers to intimidation and threats, something not found with secret balloting.
Union Censorship Exposed by Foundation
As if that weren’t bad enough, Messenger testified how the Biden-Harris NLRB “operates the most repressive regime of government censorship in the nation” by censoring employees’ ability to hear basic truthful information from employers that union officials don’t want workers to hear.
“Just imagine if the ruling party of a third-world nation decided to use such a process instead of having secret-ballot elections for political office,” Messenger testified. “Instead of having elections, the ruling party would go around to people’s homes and workplaces and collect ‘votes’ for the party. Instead of free speech, only the ruling party would be allowed to campaign.
“I submit this process is nothing like a democratic process,” Messenger declared. “Yet the Biden NLRB is . . . mandating card check with its Cemex decision, under which it’s now an unfair labor practice . . . for an employer to refuse to recognize a union based on cards.”
At the July hearing, Will Sussman detailed the harrowing story of how GSU union bosses continued demanding dues payments from him and other Jewish MIT graduate students even after they had informed the union of their religious objections and requested religious accommodations due to their beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to accommodate those that have religious objections to subsidizing union activities; in practice this usually entails letting the employee pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity.
MIT Grad Student Recounts Union Discrimination, Calls for Right to Work
But Sussman explained that the union blew off this legal duty, and legal action by the Foundation’s attorneys was needed: “The union denied my request, telling me in a letter that ‘no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union’ . . . In other words, UE thinks it understands my faith better than I do.
“This Congress should pass the National Right to Work Act, so that unions have to earn their dues and think twice before discriminating against minorities,” Sussman added.
Mark Mix Op-ed: “When Alabama workers fought for years to escape the UAW ‘Roach Motel’”
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
To inform Alabama Mercedes-Benz workers of their rights and the availability of free legal aid as United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses targeted them with an aggressive unionization campaign, Foundation staff got this opinion piece from Mark Mix published in The Center Square this May. The workers ended up voting against installing the UAW at their workplace.
May 16, 2024 | Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation
Although the upcoming vote of Alabama Mercedes-Benz employees over whether or not to affiliate with officials from the Detroit-based United Autoworkers union has been billed as a historic first for the state, in fact it isn’t.
Based in Hamilton, Ala., workers at NTN-Bower, which manufactures roller bearings used in vehicle wheels, were subject to UAW representation from 1976 until the workers kicked the union out in 2015 after a protracted legal fight.
In Hamilton, UAW bosses ordered a divisive, prolonged strike at the plant. When some employees decided to defy union orders and exercise their right to return to work despite the strike, they faced aggressive harassment from UAW partisans, including tacks dropped to flatten tires and even racial slurs.
“Someone had to stand up for families like mine who simply couldn’t risk going on strike,” said Ginger Estes, who would go on to lead a petition to “decertify,” or remove, the UAW. “It didn’t take me long to see firsthand how the UAW was putting the plant at risk.
“The union’s leaders were willing to gamble with the livelihoods of hundreds of workers and were actively protecting lazy and incompetent employees who made the rest of us look bad.”
When workers began collecting decertification petitions at NTN-Bower, the harassment ramped up again.
Estes, whose husband and son also worked at the plant, took the threats personally. “During my signature-gathering process, I frequently had harassing phone calls made to my house and even had three of our family dogs die under mysterious circumstances.”
Eventually, Estes and her coworkers collected enough signatures to get the National Labor Relations Board to schedule a decertification election. However, workers soon found out that UAW officials weren’t willing to accept the results when a majority voted to reject the union.
UAW lawyers got the NLRB to overturn the first election’s result. When a rerun election occurred, a majority again voted against keeping the union, but UAW lawyers got that vote thrown out too. In a third election the UAW supposedly “won,” but that vote was disallowed due to obvious vote fraud, as more votes were cast than there were actual eligible voters.
In the fourth election, the UAW got the vote against them overturned. In the fifth and final vote, the largest majority yet voted to remove the UAW. This time, with free representation from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, UAW lawyers were unable to overturn the result.
It took multiple years and five votes for the Alabamians at NTN-Bower to finally overcome UAW tactics designed to disenfranchise them. In the process, they saw how union officials had mistreated workers who questioned the union.
Unfortunately, their story is hardly unique.
Take the recent case of employees at a Nissan North America, Inc. parts distribution center in Somerset, New Jersey. After the previous contract expired, workers expressed frustration with how UAW officials openly ignored their voice and treated rank-and-file workers with contempt.
“UAW union officials were far more concerned with hoarding power in the workplace than communicating with or listening to workers,” observed Nissan employee Michael Oliver, who led the effort to remove the UAW. “They kept us completely in the dark about contract negotiations and treated anyone in the workplace who opposed their agenda or questioned their leadership with a huge amount of arrogance, contempt and even intimidation.”
At the election held last month, 70% of workers voted to remove the union, but the vote almost didn’t happen. UAW officials rushed to impose a contract, seemingly in an attempt to halt the decertification vote for years and/or influence its outcome.
Fortunately, the UAW’s tactics failed. The Nissan workers saw the UAW contract and voted overwhelmingly to send union officials packing.
When workers contact the National Right to Work Foundation for legal assistance with decertification, they frequently report that union organizers told workers that “if you don’t like the union, then you can always vote us out later.”
As experiences of workers at NTN-Bower and Nissan demonstrate, union officials often use underhanded legal tactics to disenfranchise the very workers they claim to “represent.”
That’s why, following her multi-year battle with UAW bosses, Alabama NTN-Bower employee Ginger Estes concluded: “The UAW will make lots of promises to workers during its campaign that it’s under no obligation to keep. But like a roach motel, once you check in to the UAW, it’s difficult if not impossible to check out.”
Post-Right to Work Repeal, MI Workers Vote to Cancel Union Bosses’ Forced-Dues Power
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
With Foundation aid, workers are fighting forced unionism through “deauthorization votes”
From Forced Dues to Freedom: Robert Gray and his coworkers at MV Transportation are part of a growing movement by Michigan workers to attack union boss privileges in the wake of the repeal of Right to Work.
MICHIGAN – MICHIGAN – As Big Labor’s pet politicians in the Michigan legislature prepared to repeal the state’s Right to Work law in 2023, Michiganders spoke out: Polling data revealed that a majority of Great Lakes State voters — including over 70% of those from union households — wanted to leave the law in place. Because Michigan’s Right to Work law protected workers’ right to freely choose whether union bosses had earned their dues money and served as a boon to Michigan’s economy, such broad support was unsurprising.
Since the party-line vote repealing the popular law took effect this February, Michigan workers are speaking out again.
So far in 2024, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have already filed double the amount of cases than the prior year for Michigan workers, many of whom are pushing back against union officials’ new powers to force workers to pay dues as a condition of keeping a job. And this July, two sets of workers from across the state successfully voted to strip union bosses of their forced-dues powers in a process known as a “deauthorization election.”
Workers Across Industries Band Together Against Pay-Up-or-Be-Fired Demands
Mechanics from Brown Motors (a Ford, Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep dealer) in Petoskey and drivers from MV Transportation (a transportation contractor) in Ypsilanti voted by well over 70% to strip forced-dues powers from Teamsters and Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) bosses respectively after successfully petitioning for such votes with Foundation aid.
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules require that at least 30% of a work unit sign onto an employee petition to trigger a deauthorization election. The only ways that workers in non-Right to Work states can end union bosses’ forced-dues powers are by either voting as a majority against forced dues in such an election (as the Brown Motors and MV Transportation employees have done), or by voting to remove the union entirely in a “decertification election.”
MI Workers Catch Union Bosses Red-Handed Violating Federal Law
Despite these encouraging efforts, it’s clear that the Right to Work repeal has emboldened Michigan union officials to play fast and loose with workers’ rights. But workers across the Great Lakes State are stepping up to defend their freedom with the benefit of Foundation legal expertise.
Other ongoing Foundation cases for Michigan workers include an NLRB case for Detroit-area Kroger employee Roger Cornett. Cornett faced post-repeal threats from his employer that he would be terminated if he did not sign a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) membership form that included a page authorizing payments to the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC). Similarly, Foundation attorneys filed multiple federal charges for Grand Rapids-area General Electric (GE) worker Richard Howard, whom United Auto Workers (UAW) bosses had fired after he refused to join and pay full union dues, including dues for political expenses.
Both forced union membership and forced contributions to a union’s political activities are illegal even in a non-Right to Work environment under longstanding federal law and the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
Foundation attorneys also recently filed federal charges for Madrina Wells and Lynette Doyle, two nurses at Ascension Genesys Hospital near Flint, MI. The charges maintain that Teamsters union officials threatened to fire them and other nurses if they didn’t sign forms authorizing union officials to deduct dues straight out of their paychecks. Requiring workers to give union bosses direct access to their paychecks is another common union boss scheme forbidden by federal law.
“Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Michiganders wanted Right to Work to remain in place, Michigan politicians repealed it on a party-line vote to appease the union boss puppeteers that fund their campaigns,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “Within just months of the repeal becoming effective, workers from all corners of the state are fighting — and winning — battles to limit union bosses’ power, showing that Michigan workers are not going to take this attack on their individual rights sitting down.”
Chicago 911 Operator Successfully Defends Janus Rights Against IBEW Forced Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Six years after Janus, union bosses still violating workers’ First Amendment rights, but workers fight back
Hundreds of thousands of American public sector workers felt the impact of the Foundation-won Janus decision almost immediately after the Supreme Court decided it in June 2018, and its legacy has only continued to grow.
CHICAGO, IL – “I decided to leave [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)] 21 because for some time now I believed that IBEW 21 was not acting in the best interest of its members. Be it a new job title that senior employees were deliberately misinformed about, to breach of contract on my employer’s part, to having to navigate the police and court alone after being threatened at work, IBEW 21 was either ineffective or absent.”
This is how Rhonda Younkins, a City of Chicago 911 operator, described the so-called “representation” she and her colleagues were getting from IBEW 21 union bosses. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Younkins in June was able to force IBEW Local 21 officials to return unlawfully deducted dues and cease future payroll deductions.
IBEW Bosses Backed Off Anti-Janus Demands After Foundation Involvement
Younkins was defending her rights under the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the justices ruled that the First Amendment forbids union bosses from forcing public sector workers to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. The Justices further clarified that union officials could only take dues from a worker’s paycheck after receiving their clear and affirmative consent.
Younkins repeatedly tried to end dues payments to the IBEW 21 union, but union officials either ignored her requests or tried to foist other demands on her. After many unsuccessful attempts, Younkins sought free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, who filed charges against the IBEW union at the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB).
IBEW 21 union officials eventually backed down, ceased dues collections, and issued refunds of past illegally seized dues.
Janus Impact Still Growing
While Younkins’ reasons for defunding IBEW union bosses are unique to her job and experience, she’s certainly not alone in using Janus to break free from union bosses’ influence. After Janus was issued in 2018, an estimated 450,000 public employees immediately stopped payment to unions, and in the six years since then, Foundation-backed litigation has helped defend the rights of tens of thousands of other government employees.
“We at the Foundation are encouraged at the strides workers have made since our Janus victory at the Supreme Court,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “But the fight is far from over. As cases like Ms. Younkins’ show, union bosses still stonewall public workers when they try to exercise their First Amendment Janus freedoms, and private sector workers don’t yet enjoy similar protections.
“Foundation staff attorneys will keep fighting for a future where all American workers’ right to freely associate or dissociate with a union is fully protected,” Semmens added.
Professors Launch Landmark SCOTUS Bid to End Forced Union Association
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NY law unconstitutionally forces professors under “representation” of anti-Semitic union
Together, (from left) Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, Fairness Center General Counsel Nathan McGrath, and CUNY Professors Mitchell Langbert and Avraham Goldstein seek to establish new protections against forced union association.
WASHINGTON, DC – Avraham Goldstein, a mathematics professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), wrote in a 2022 Wall Street Journal op-ed about the predicament that he and many of his Jewish colleagues face because New York law forces them under the “representation” of an anti-Israel union: “I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity. I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good . . . I was wrong.”
It was this situation that led Avraham Goldstein, along with fellow professors Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, to file a federal lawsuit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY, and State of New York officials in 2022. That lawsuit challenged New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. Such power permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers — including those that want nothing to do with the union.
Professors’ Petition: First Amendment Protects Union Dissenters
Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center have litigated the professors’ case up through the federal court system. Now they’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take their case and clarify that the First Amendment forbids union officials from foisting their voice and values on public sector workers who oppose the union.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins.
The High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
Original Complaint Detailed Union Bosses’ Discrimination
The professors’ original complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents — including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” As their petition at the Supreme Court notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since the events of October 7.
Professors Could Create Groundbreaking Precedent
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors.
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s high time that the Justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to accept political ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
Full Foundation Action July/August 2024 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the May/June 2024 issue of Foundation Action are now online.
In this issue:
- California Farmworkers Fight Back Against Lie-Ridden Union ‘Card Check’
- Dependable Highway Express Workers Successfully Oust Teamsters Union Officials
- Foundation-Backed Workers Push Back Against UAW Bosses’ Coercive Tactics
- Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
- MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
- MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
MIT Grad Student Charges ‘Marxist’ Union with Illegal Forced Dues for Politics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Five other MIT students also filed religious discrimination charges against radical UE
More clouds are gathering over at MIT as yet another graduate student targets the university with federal charges. She maintains the GSU union and MIT administration are illegally funneling student money into union politics.
BOSTON, MA – Following five Jewish students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filing federal religious discrimination charges against the same union, the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE, an affiliate of the United Electrical Workers union) is now facing new federal unfair labor practice charges from civil engineering graduate student Katerina Boukin.
Under a series of controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings, graduate students at private universities like MIT are treated as “employees” of the university who can be subjected to forced union “representation.” Boukin’s charges, filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, maintain that union officials are unlawfully seizing money from her research compensation to support union political activities she abhors.
Extremist Union Politics Foisted on Graduate Students
“GSU union officials are going above and beyond what is legal and are forcing me to pay for their political activities, including their opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution, that I find deeply offensive,” commented Boukin. “The GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
Boukin’s charges seek to enforce her rights under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. This landmark ruling established that even in states like Massachusetts that lack Right to Work protections, union officials cannot legally compel individuals to pay for union expenses unrelated to bargaining activities, like union boss political activities.
According to Boukin’s charge, GSU union officials are violating the law by claiming she cannot exercise her rights under Beck because she missed a union-created annual “window period.” However, her charge asserts this restriction is blatantly illegal.
In fact, the GSU union was already forced to settle a prior Beck case, agreeing there to properly process students’ attempts to exercise their Beck rights. Boukin’s charges against the union argue that the union may be violating not only her rights but also the settlement it made with the NLRB.
GSU Union Bosses Also Charged for Illegal Religious Discrimination
MIT graduate student Will Sussman, along with fellow students Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, and Adina Bechhofer, have also filed religious discrimination charges against the GSU union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They’ve also obtained free Foundation legal help.
The students, who are Jewish, oppose the union’s advocacy for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) anti-Israel movement. Despite asking union officials for legally-required religious exemptions from union dues payment, GSU officials denied their requests and even attempted to explain in letters how the students didn’t truly understand their faith.
As of this article, those EEOC charges remain pending against the GSU, with a federal lawsuit likely the next step if the union refuses to stop its illegal discrimination.
“Freedom of association is apparently a foreign concept to GSU union officials, who are flouting layers upon layers of federal law to compel students to fund their radical political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “However, both this case and Foundation attorneys’ cases for the five Jewish MIT graduate students show on a deeper level that the choice to provide support to a union should rest solely with workers, who may have sincere religious, political, or other objections to funding any or all of a union’s activities.”
MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed workers battle union seizures of PAC money, confusing dues forms
President Biden has worked hard to give UFCW bosses and other union officials across America drastically more coercive power over workers. So it’s no wonder UFCW officials are trying to illicitly funnel employee money into union PACs.
DETROIT, MI – Union bosses in states without Right to Work laws are granted the extraordinary legal power to demand that workers pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. But this perk doesn’t stop many union chiefs in those states from going beyond what is legally permitted to funnel more worker cash into their political activities or other agenda items.
Two recent cases National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Kroger Grocery employees Roger Cornett, who works just outside Detroit, Michigan, and James Carroll, who works at a store in Fairfield, Ohio, represent just the latest examples of union officials’ tactics designed to require employees to pay for union political activities without obtaining legally-required consent.
In both cases, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials demanded employees agree to formal union membership and to pay full union dues to keep their jobs, which decades-old Supreme Court cases forbid even in non-Right to Work states. In fact, Cornett states in his federal charges against Kroger and the union that UFCW union officials lack a legal basis to demand money from any worker at all.
Neither situation is helped by the fact that Kroger, a supermarket company with a long history of being complicit when union officials violate its employees’ rights, not only did nothing to defend the rights of its employees but actually threatened the employees for not going along with union schemes.
Union Socks Away Worker Cash for PAC, Despite No Legal Authority
Cornett’s charges recount that he asked Kroger officials in February if there was an updated version of the union contract that would require him and other nonmembers to pay dues as a condition of employment in light of the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law. Neither UFCW nor Kroger provided Cornett with such a contract in response to his request.
The lack of a contract eviscerates the UFCW’s ability to demand any money from workers. Under longstanding federal law, even in a state without Right to Work protections, union officials can only require employees to pay dues as a condition of employment if there exists a contract with a valid forced-dues clause.
Union officials also told Cornett and other workers that it was a condition of employment for employees to become union members, authorize direct deductions of union dues from their pay, and “sign all or part of the three-part Union membership application and checkoff form” — the latter of which included a page authorizing deductions for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC).
The Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision forbids union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay money for any expenses outside the union’s core bargaining functions, while federal law prevents union bosses from requiring workers to authorize payroll deductions of union dues (as opposed to less intrusive methods) or to pay money to a union PAC used to fund union boss-backed political candidates.
Cornett says in his charges that he decided to sign the three-part form in order to keep his job, but Foundation attorneys are fighting to ensure he will be vindicated for each and every violation by union officials and Kroger.
Ohio Worker Duels UFCW Over Illegal ‘Dual-Purpose’ Membership Form
In Ohio, Kroger employee James Carroll has charged UFCW union bosses with coercing him into signing an illegal “dual-purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions.
Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application, as workers have the right to abstain from forced union membership even in non-Right to Work states where some fees can be required. In his case, Carroll is also battling Kroger’s continuing deduction of full union dues from his paycheck at UFCW chiefs’ behest, despite his lack of consent.
“Not only did UFCW bosses present me with a form that clearly violates federal labor law, but they also threatened that I would lose my job if I didn’t sign it,” commented Carroll. “This only serves to show me that UFCW bosses don’t care about my rights and are simply interested in getting union dues out of me, and it’s sad to see my employer going along with this as well.”
Right to Work Protects Worker Freedom Where Federal Law Doesn’t
“Even where Right to Work isn’t in effect, federal law protects the right of workers not to be forced into formal union membership that includes support for union politics. But union bosses regularly seek to exploit their power to demand payments that go beyond what the law allows,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to help Mr. Carroll and Mr. Cornett defend their rights, but ultimately Ohio and Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work so union financial support is fully voluntary and employees have a clear right to say ‘no’ to any union demand for payment.”
Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
À la Janus, religious objector to union affiliation is free from all forced payments
The landmark Janus SCOTUS case, argued by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, profoundly strengthened public employees’ First Amendment rights. But it appears the impact of the case is just beginning.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have been trailblazers in scoring legal protections for independent-minded workers who oppose joining or paying dues to a union on religious grounds. Over the years, Foundation attorneys have helped workers from a variety of faiths secure religious accommodations to forced-dues payment.
Earlier this year, Foundation attorneys achieved a breakthrough in this area of the law. In their case for Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-based employee of security company Allied Universal who sought a faith-based exemption from paying dues to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate, Foundation attorneys won an unprecedented settlement. It not only frees Ross from any requirement to pay dues or fees to the union, but also frees him from any obligation to pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity, which has been the dominant form of accommodation in the past for religious objectors.
Union Demanded Religious Worker Violate Faith, Breaking Federal Laws
Ross is a Christian who opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs disallowed union membership and that he needed an accommodation. In addition to ignoring that request, in 2022 his employer told him that union membership was mandatory and “demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the [union], and pay union dues,” according to filings in his case.
Ross fought back by filing federal discrimination charges against the union and Allied Universal at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as by filing unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires unions and employers to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits mandatory union membership, even in non-Right to Work states like California.
Ross’ Foundation-backed legal battle against SEIU and Allied Universal continued into 2023, when Foundation attorneys appealed a specious NLRB decision which attempted to dispose of the issue as a mere administrative error on the employer’s part. Finally, in 2024, the SEIU and Allied Universal backed down and settled the case, conceding a full religious accommodation to Ross.
The terms of the settlement state that Allied Universal and SEIU “will not enforce the collective bargaining agreement’s union membership and fee provisions against Ross . . . [and] will not force Ross to pay any union fees while he is employed by Allied Universal.”
In an article in the Baylor Law Review following the settlement, Foundation attorneys Bruce Cameron and Blaine Hutchison argue that, in light of the Foundation’s landmark 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME, religious accommodations like Ross’ should be the standard for future cases involving religious objectors to union membership and dues payment. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits forcing public sector employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Janus Shows Right Way to Accommodate Religious Employees
The article points out that the Supreme Court in Janus knocked down the so-called “free-rider” and “labor-peace” arguments that union lawyers typically use to justify forcing religious objectors to pay dues money to a charity. In Janus, the article explains, “The Court showed that nonmembers need not pay fees to compensate the union or to prevent labor unrest.”
The payment-to-charity scheme simply “punishes individuals for following their faith,” the article says. “Janus shows the proper solution: religious objectors need not pay any forced union fees.”
“Mr. Ross fought bravely with help from Foundation attorneys, and has opened up a new horizon for religious employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The idea that union officials can force religious objectors to make any kind of payment clearly runs counter to America’s core ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of association, and it’s high time that courts recognize more robust protections for those rights.
“However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious in nature or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose,” Mix added.
