Foundation Freedom of Information Act Request Exposes NLRB Bias against Workers
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Emails show NLRB insiders cheered Biden’s unprecedented attack on agency’s ‘independence’
After Foundation attorneys’ FOIA request revealed pro-Biden bias pervading the “independent” NLRB, Foundation staffers secured coverage for the findings in some of the nation’s top outlets.
WASHINGTON, DC – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have uncovered, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) staff emails that expose the partisan response to unprecedented power grabs launched by the Biden Administration at the behest of Organized Labor.
Biden Power Grab Prompts Records Request
The FOIA request was filed to provide further details surrounding Biden’s unprecedented and legally dubious removal of Trump-appointed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who had sided with Foundation-represented workers in several cases in which they sought to resist union boss coercion. The emails show widespread partisan bias throughout the agency, which is charged with neutrally enforcing federal labor law.
Under long-standing federal law, the NLRB General Counsel has unreviewable authority to prosecute unfair labor practice charges, including those brought by workers against union officials. To protect that authority from blatant political interference, Congress gave the General Counsel a four-year term. Once appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, no General Counsel in the history of the NLRB had ever been fired. That changed when, just minutes after Biden took office on January 20, 2021, his administration moved to fire Robb despite 11 months remaining on his term.
NLRB Officials Celebrated Biden Attack on Labor Board’s Top Prosecutor
Following Biden’s election with the backing of Big Labor officials who wanted to shield themselves from accountability at the NLRB, Biden was encouraged by union bosses to remove General Counsel Robb and replace him with a union partisan. Five days after the removal of Robb, Biden fully obliged, selecting career NLRB bureaucrat Peter Sung Ohr as Acting General Counsel. The FOIA-requested emails show that although some NLRB officials were surprised by Biden’s actions — with one career NLRB attorney noting the move was “not expected” — some current and former NLRB officials voiced their approval of the unprecedented actions that fly in the face of the prosecutorial independence that Congress sought to protect when the General Counsel’s office was established. Los Angeles-based NLRB Region 31 Director Mori Rubin sent an email to her colleagues reacting to the news that Alice Stock, then the number-two attorney at the agency, had been fired along with Robb. Rubin derided Stock as a “clone” of Robb. She said “there is talk that Peter Ohr may be appointed acting GC, which would be wonderful!” Respondents to the thread, whose names are redacted, proclaimed: “Go Biden!!”, “That would be terrific!” and “Hope this comes true!”
Within days Ohr rescinded almost a dozen guidance memos issued by Robb, including one ensuring workers could avoid funding union political and lobbying activities, another allowing workers to intervene in legal actions that are used to block efforts to secure decertification votes, and yet another strengthening unions’ obligations to workers subject to union boss monopoly bargaining. In all these instances Ohr took the position advocated by union officials who had backed Biden’s election campaign, and against those of Foundation-backed employees.
Ohr earned praise for his aggressive implementation of the Biden agenda. Among the emails unearthed in the FOIA request was a message to Ohr from longtime NLRB attorney Emily Hunt describing her reaction on the day of Biden’s inauguration when she learned that Robb had been removed: “I exclaimed to myself, ‘This day just keeps getting better and better!’” Hunt, whose career with the NLRB spanned over 30 years, commended Ohr for rescinding Robb’s memos.
Foundation Spreads the Word About Activism within NLRB
The NLRB emails received coverage from multiple outlets including Fox Business, The Epoch Times, and Reuters. The coverage exposed the favoritism of many inside the NLRB towards union officials despite the Board’s directive to apolitically enforce federal labor law.
“By celebrating Joe Biden’s unprecedented attack on the Board’s independence so openly, the NLRB officials in these emails make it clear that those inside their agency do not want the Board to be an independent enforcer of the law as Congress intended,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Instead, these partisans want the Board to be an activist agency with a mission of advancing union boss power at the expense of the rights of rank-and-file workers.”
Opposition Filed to Judge’s Order Imposing Culinary Union on Workers who Rejected Union in Secret Ballot Vote
Red Rock Casino workers vote against unionization, but nearly 2 years later judge ordered employer to bargain with union officials
Las Vegas, NV (August 24, 2021) – A large majority of the workers at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada voted “no” to unionization, but a federal district court judge is forcing their employer to bargain with union officials anyway.
The Casino is appealing the judge’s order at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Now Red Rock employee Raynell Teske has filed an amicus brief arguing the judge was wrong to impose the union on the workers, given the rejection of the union in the election. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys assisted Teske for free in filing the amicus brief with the appellate court.
In December 2019, the National Labor Relations Board held a secret ballot election whether to unionize Red Rock. A sizable majority of those voting rejected union officials’ effort to become their monopoly bargaining representatives. Despite that vote, NLRB Region 28 Director Cornele Overstreet filed a federal court injunction action seeking to have the union imposed over the workers’ objections.
On July 20, 2021, Judge Gloria Navarro agreed with the NLRB Director’s request, and issued a “Gissel” order forcing Red Rock to bargain with union officials despite the employees’ vote against unionization. The judge said the order was justified because, prior to the vote, union officials claimed that a majority of workers had signed union authorization cards.
Teske’s amicus brief argues those “card check” signatures are unreliable, and not reason enough to conclude the union ever had majority support. She contends the level of union support was tested fairly by the secret-ballot election, in which workers voted 627-534 against unionization. Secret ballots are a far more reliable way of gauging worker support for a union, because workers are often pressured, harassed, or misled by union organizers into signing cards.
Unions themselves know that “card check” signatures do not indicate solid worker support. The AFL-CIO admitted in its 1989 organizing handbook that it needed at least 75% card check support before having even a 50-50 chance of winning a secret ballot election. An earlier guidebook acknowledged that some workers sign cards just to “get the union off my back.”
Teske’s brief argues the union’s possession of so-called “cards” is an insufficient legal basis for imposing unionization, especially after a secret ballot election in which the union lost. It agrees with the employer that the “Gissel” order should be overturned, and that Teske and her coworkers should not be subjected to monopoly bargaining by a union they rejected in an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.
This is not the only case in which union bosses are battling casino employees in court. Red Rock’s parent company, Station Casinos, also owns Palms Casino in Las Vegas, where employees filed a petition to decertify union officials in March, 2021. Union lawyers blocked the petition with a slew of charges that were accepted by NLRB bureaucrats as reason to block the workers’ petition. The Palms Casino worker represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys who filed the petition is appealing the decision to block the vote he requested.
“Ms. Teske and her coworkers had good reasons to reject the union. It is outrageous that the judge’s order imposing unwanted unionization brushes aside the workers’ contrary preference clearly demonstrated in the secret ballot vote,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “There have been countless examples of workers being pressured, misled and even bribed to sign union cards, which is why ‘Card Check’ is widely accepted as unreliable, especially compared to an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.”
“If federal labor law is to be about defending the rights and freedoms of rank-and-file workers, then the Court of Appeals should promptly overturn Judge Navarro’s order substituting the wishes of NLRB bureaucrats for the actual choice workers made at the ballot box,” added Mix.
Teamsters Union Charged with Illegally Threatening UPS Worker: ‘Join Union or Be Fired’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Teamsters official falsely claimed worker could be fired if he did not join and pay full dues
UPS worker Kamil Fraczek refused to kowtow to Teamsters officials’ threats in his workplace when they untruthfully told him that he had to formally join the union and pay dues just to keep working.
QUEENS, NY – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, New York City UPS warehouse worker Kamil Fraczek has filed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charge against Teamsters Local 804. The charge came after a Teamsters union official made repeated threats to his job and lied about his legal rights.
Union Official Refused to Respect Worker’s Rights under Beck Decision
When Fraczek began working at the warehouse full-time, a Teamsters representative tried to mislead him by telling Fraczek he must become a union member and sign documents authorizing dues deductions from his paycheck. Fraczek specifically asked about other options, but the union representative told him that if he did not sign the forms, Teamsters officials would ask UPS to fire him.
Because New York is a forced-unionism state that doesn’t protect workers with a Right to Work law, Fraczek can be required to pay some union fees as a condition of his job.
However, under long-standing federal law, workers cannot be required to become formal union members nor can they be required to pay full union dues even in non- Right to Work states. Under the Supreme Court’s 1988 CWA v. Beck decision, won by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, no private sector worker can be compelled to financially support union activities unrelated to bargaining.
Union Misinformation Continues Even after Employee Demanded Rights
Expenses which can’t be charged to non-members under Beck include political expenditures and members-only activities.
Knowing his actual rights, Fraczek returned to the Teamsters official asking to be recognized as a non-member and Beck objector. He provided a letter to the representative stating his intention to pay only reduced fees and declining union membership.
As the unfair labor practice charge states, instead of accepting Fraczek’s request, the Teamsters official doubled down on his prior illegal threats. He demanded that Fraczek pay full dues and sign membership documents or face termination.
“Local 804’s agent has repeatedly tried to mislead Mr. Fraczek about his rights and has invoked the Union’s power to get him fired, all in an effort to coerce Mr. Fraczek into signing the membership and dues deduction authorization form . . .”
– Fraczek’s NLRB Charge
The official falsely claimed that only supervisors can opt out of the union, and that the federal laws protecting workers from funding union political activities only apply in Right to Work states, not in forced-unionism states like New York.
In response, Fraczek’s Foundation staff attorneys filed an NLRB charge asserting his right to pay reduced fees under Beck and not to join the union.
Teamsters Union Hit with Federal Charges for Illegal- Dues Demands
According to the charge, “Local 804’s agent has repeatedly tried to mislead Mr. Fraczek about his rights and has invoked the Union’s power to get him fired, all in an effort to coerce Mr. Fraczek into signing the membership and dues deduction authorization form…”
“Union officials are perfectly willing to tell outright lies to independent-minded workers who object to union membership,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses blatantly ignore the law just to protect their forced-dues revenue stream, and it is workers like Mr. Fraczek who pay the price.”
NLRB Blocks Attempt to Oust Union, Despite Unanimous Call for Union’s Removal
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Every employee signed a petition for vote to remove Carpenters Union from their workplace
Foundation staff attorneys are defending Neises Concrete Construction Corp. workers’ unanimous call to free themselves from the coercive reign of IKORCC union bosses.
CROWN POINT, IN – Mike Halkias and his coworkers at Neises Construction Corp. in Crown Point, Indiana, are subject to monopoly “representation” by officials of the Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters (IKORCC) union.
Every bargaining unit member exercised the right under Indiana’s Right to Work Law to decline formal union membership and to refuse to pay any union dues or fees, but union officials still have the authority under federal law to “negotiate” with Neises for the employees despite their objections to that representation.
NLRB Officials Snub Workers’ Unanimous Petition, Demand Union Bargaining
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Halkias submitted a decertification petition to Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), signed by every member of his unit, to remove IKORCC union officials from their workplace.
Despite unanimous agreement by the unit’s workers to hold a vote to oust IKORCC bosses, NLRB Region 13 officials rejected the decertification petition. The Regional Director is demanding that the Indiana employer bargain with IKORCC, even though none of its employees want the union to “represent” them.
Union Bosses Won’t Give Up Monopoly Bargaining Power over Non-members
So far union officials have stymied the vote through “blocking charges,” unfair labor practice charges filed by union lawyers that, before they are resolved, prevent a vote from taking place. Union officials claim the vote cannot proceed until the company negotiates “in good faith” with the union.
That demand comes even though federal law makes it illegal for an employer to engage in bargaining with a union that it knows lacks the support of at least a bare majority of workers. The NLRB regional official’s order dismissing the employees’ petition did not even acknowledge that every employee in Mr. Halkias’ bargaining unit has shown a desire to be independent from the union by resigning union membership and asking for a decertification vote.
Foundation Attorneys Bring Fight to National Board
The Foundation staff attorneys who represent Halkias have appealed to the NLRB in Washington to overturn the rejection of the decertification petition and to allow the workers to vote so they can be rid of the union whose so-called “representation” they all oppose. “It is outrageous that in a workplace where every single worker wants nothing to do with a union, federal law still forces workers to accept the so-called ‘representation’ of union bosses,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
“The fact that this appeal is even necessary demonstrates how rigged federal law is against independent-minded workers who seek to exercise their right not to associate with a union.”
“This case is a reminder that, even in Right to Work states that protect workers from being forced to fund a union they don’t support, federal law still forces workers under union monopoly control even when those employees oppose the union and believe they would be better off without it.”
Oregon ABC Cameraman Wins Ruling Against Illegal Dues-Seizing NABET Bosses
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2021 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Administrative Law Judge orders union boss to refund all illegally taken money
He’s done playing games: After cameraman Jeremy Brown sought free legal aid from the Foundation, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge ruled against NABET bosses for violating his Beck rights for years.
PORTLAND, OR – Jeremy Brown, a “daily hire” cameraman for ABC who had worked on and off for the company since 1999, would not have thought that a new president taking over the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Local 51 union would mean anything for him when he resumed work in 2016. After all, he had worked for ABC for nearly three years, and the union had never even contacted him and he had never joined the union.
Then, in 2019, he received a series of letters from the new union honcho, demanding he pay nearly $10,000 in initiation fees and so-called “back-agency dues.” Brown quickly obtained free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys and asserted his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
Beck prevents private sector union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from formal union membership to pay for anything unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenses. Moreover, it requires union officials to provide information on the union’s fee calculation and expenditures to non-members.
New NABET Chief Demanded Thousands, Then Snubbed Cameraman’s Beck Rights
Because Brown works primarily in non-Right to Work states, he can be legally forced as a condition of employment to pay some fees to union bosses.
After receiving the baffling, belated dues demands, Brown emailed the new union president, Carrie Biggs-Adams, asking for clarification. He also exercised his Beck rights by objecting “to the collection and expenditure by the union of a fee for any purpose other than” certain bargaining activities. Believing that he would be fired if he did not agree to pay union dues, he filled out a form authorizing NABET to take full dues from his paycheck, but did so under duress.
Biggs-Adams ignored several follow-ups by Brown. According to legal documents, she “believed Local 51 had no obligation to [reply to Brown] because Beck objections” are handled only by the union’s national headquarters under NABET rules. Even so, she never apprised Brown of NABET’s national mailing address, or provided him the dues reduction or any of the information mandated by Beck.
In December, Brown won a decision from a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) about the union’s Beck rights violations. The ALJ’s decision holds the NABET union violated Brown’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through its officials’ omissions and the failure to reduce his dues.
The ALJ ordered NABET Local 51 to provide Brown with “a good faith determination of the reduced dues and fees objectors must pay,” and “reimburse Brown for all dues and fees collected” beyond what is required under Beck, with interest.
“While this decision vindicated Mr. Brown’s legal rights, it also demonstrates why every American worker deserves the protection of a Right to Work law to shield them from union boss threats to pay up or be fired,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.
Airline Workers Ask Appeals Courts to Invalidate Union Dues Opt-Out Schemes
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Cases challenge requirement that workers opt out of union political spending or else pay full dues
Just “plane” wrong: United Airlines fleet service employee Arthur Baisley (left) and JetBlue Airways pilot Christian Popp (right) are fighting to end schemes that deduct union political expenses out of workers’ paychecks without their consent.
NEW ORLEANS, LA – With free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, two airline workers have filed cases challenging union boss policies that require workers to opt out in order to exercise their First Amendment right not to fund union political activities, as recognized in the Foundation-argued 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision.
The two federal class-action lawsuits were brought for United Airlines fleet service employee Arthur Baisley and JetBlue Airways pilot Christian Popp. They are currently pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits respectively.
Workers Challenge Compelled Political Speech
Baisley’s case against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union has been fully briefed and is tentatively set for oral argument the week of November 30. Meanwhile, the opening brief for Popp’s case against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) union was filed in early October.
The lawsuits contend that under Janus and the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court cases — both argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys — no union dues or fees can be charged for union political activities without a worker’s affirmative consent.
Despite this, union officials at the IAM and ALPA enforce complicated opt-out policies that require workers to object to funding union political activities or else pay full union dues. Foundation staff attorneys argue that the Janus decision’s opt-in requirement applies to airline and railroad employees covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), taken together with longstanding precedent protecting private sector workers from being required to pay for union political and ideological activities.
Mr. Baisley and Mr. Popp both work in Right to Work states (Texas and Florida, respectively), but the RLA preempts state law. Consequently, they can be forced to pay union dues or fees or be fired. Even under the RLA, however, union bosses cannot legally force workers to pay for political activities.
Cases Could Expand Janus Protections to Private Sector
The lawsuits argue IAM and ALPA’s opt-out policies are designed to trap unwilling participants into full dues in violation of their First Amendment rights. This forces workers to subsidize union political activities against their will, including the part of full dues that union officials use to support their radical political agenda and handpicked candidates for office.
“IAM and ALPA union officials have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the rights of the very workers they claim to represent by creating complicated obstacles for independent-minded workers who want to exercise their right not to fund union ideological activities,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Although Janus’ biggest impact was to secure the First Amendment rights of all public employees across the nation not to be required to fund Big Labor, these cases demonstrate that Janus’ implications can also protect the rights of private sector workers.”
Full Foundation Action September/October 2020 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the September/October issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- Foundation Defends New Rules Protecting Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
- Chicago Transit Worker Joins Mark Janus at Supreme Court in Demanding Refunds
- Mix to US Attorney: Let Workers Refuse to Fund Scandal-Ridden UAW Bosses
- Push to Remove UFCW Union Could End Pro-Union Boss “Contract Bar” Policy
- Ohio Public Workers Axe Illegal Restrictions on Janus Rights for Almost 30,000
- Oklahoma Sysco Employees Boot Unpopular Teamsters Bosses from Warehouse
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Rhode Island Officers Win Over $110,000 in Lawsuits Ending Forced-Dues Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-won settlements also reinstate officers fired after challenging outrageous dues deductions
IBPO union bosses and Town of Westerly officials thought they could get away with seizing $5 per hour illegally from five non-union officers. As the result of Foundation-won settlements, all five officers have now had their rights vindicated.
WESTERLY, RI – Reserve Officers Scott Ferrigno, Darrell Koza, Raymond Morrone, Anthony Falcone and Thomas Cimalore have won favorable settlements in their cases challenging a forced union dues scheme between International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) Local 503 union bosses and Town of Westerly officials. The officers also won favorable settlements for retaliation claims they brought after publicly challenging the unlawful arrangement.
The lawsuits were filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Rhode Island-based Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights. Under the settlements, IBPO and the Town of Westerly agreed to pay almost $65,000 in refunds of union fees seized from the officers through the illegal scheme and compensation for the officers’ other claims. Officers Koza and Ferrigno will also be reinstated as police officers and receive nearly $48,000 in back pay from the Town for the period after they were terminated.
“The Foundation is proud to stand with Officers Ferrigno, Koza, Morrone, Falcone, Cimalore, and all public servants who are targeted with intimidation, misinformation, threats of firing, and other illegal tactics simply to keep dues money flowing into the bank accounts of self-interested union officials,” commented National Right to Work President Mark Mix.
According to the lawsuits, IBPO bosses and the Town of Westerly began seizing $5 per hour from each of the five officers’ hourly pay without authorization in April 2014. IBPO and the Town perpetrated this scheme against the officers even though they were classified as “nonpermanent police officers” outside the so-called “representation” of union bosses.
Lawsuit: IBPO Union Bosses and Town Officials Violated First Amendment Rights
Over the next six months, in an attempt to stop the flow of illegal fees in this “backroom deal,” the officers repeatedly sought meetings with Town officials, including the Town of Westerly’s payroll department, the Westerly Chief of Police, the Town Manager and the Town Council, only to be rebuffed. According to the lawsuit, the Chief of Police warned the officers they could be “easily replaced” if they sought publicity for their cause.
The Reserve Officers finally managed to present their objections to the Town Council, but it refused to stop the compulsory fees. On October 20, 2014, within a week of hearing that the Reserve Officers arranged a meeting with the Town Council to argue their objections to the forced-fee scheme, the chief emailed the Town Manager informing her of his plan to terminate Koza and downgrade reserve officers’ priority level for taking on new traffic detail assignments. The five officers contended that this limited the hours they could work and the pay they could earn.
Town Official Assumed Officers Wouldn’t Have Money to Pursue Cases
Records disclosed during the litigation revealed that during a November 2014 meeting between the Town Council and other town and union officials to discuss the potential of litigation in this situation, one official opined, “It’s going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars . . . They’d have to take this money out of their pockets. I don’t think [their attorney] is going to represent them for free.” Another official at the time asserted, “If we say no, they’re probably going to back down.” When the officials considered whether the Reserve Officers would keep working for the Town, one council member commented, “They can always go to McDonald’s.”
In December 2014, the Town fired Koza, who had never been disciplined by the Town before these events. According to Koza’s lawsuit, the Town attempted to justify his termination on the grounds that he had not immediately left his position directing traffic in a busy intersection to move his police cruiser for an officer attempting to drive through a restricted lane. The Town also cited Koza’s calling himself a “police officer” rather than a “reserve police officer” in his application for a handgun carry permit. Koza’s lawsuit points out that the Town’s charter then gave “nonpermanent police officers” like Koza the powers of regular police officers while on duty, and all of Koza’s references in his application called him a “reserve officer,” “reserve police officer,” and “reserve officer with the Westerly Police Department.”
The Town fired Ferrigno in May 2016. According to Ferrigno’s lawsuit, the Town alleged that he left a bicycle race detail assignment early. But Ferrigno contended that he actually stayed five minutes later than he was instructed to by his supervisor while waiting for his replacement to arrive. As further evidence that his firing was unconstitutional retaliation, Ferrigno’s lawsuit also noted that the officer who arrived late to relieve him was a union official, who was never even disciplined for his lateness.
The five filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, arguing that IBPO and Town of Westerly officials had violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to financially support the union when they were outside its contract. The officers’ lawsuit also alleged that Town officials seized union dues without their individual written authorization in violation of Rhode Island’s wage deduction laws. The lawsuit additionally charged that the town retaliated against them when they spoke out publicly about the malfeasance.
Reserve Officers Win Refunds of Seized Dues and Reinstatement
Officers Koza and Ferrigno filed their own complaints in the same court, charging the Town with firing them for exercising their First Amendment rights. All the lawsuits also sought punitive damages. Ultimately, rather than face the officers and their attorneys at trial, Town and Union officials agreed to settle the cases. The settlements order union officials to compensate the officers almost $20,000 and Town officials to pay $45,000 for dues that were seized illegally under the “$5 per hour” policy and for other damages and claims. The settlements in Koza’s and Ferrigno’s cases, on top of requiring the Town to reinstate the two officers and pay back wages, require that all references related to the discipline forming the basis of their lawsuits be removed from their personnel records.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island later entered a consent judgment in the case which forbids IBPO Local 503 from forcing any constable or reserve officer to pay union dues or fees without his or her affirmative consent.
“The Town and the IBPO could have avoided the years and expense of litigation if they had only listened in 2014 when we first tried to tell them that they cannot just take $5 per hour from our pay and give it to the Union without our permission,” Officer Cimalore said. “After unsuccessfully trying more than a year to resolve the matter, we were forced to go to federal court.”
Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Hear Janus Case Again, Seeking Return of Forced Fees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Case could set precedent for hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to Big Labor’s victims
Mark Janus’ second Foundation-backed appeal to the Supreme Court landed the top spot on Fox News’ website. If Janus prevails again, hundreds of millions of dollars in unconstitutional union dues could be returned to public sector employees.
WASHINGTON, DC – Mark Janus is returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, this time asking the Justices to hear the continuation of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31. Janus seeks repayment of the thousands of dollars in fees the union took from his paycheck in violation of his First Amendment rights. Another Supreme Court victory for Janus could set a precedent resulting in the return of hundreds of millions of dollars seized by union officials in violation of workers’ constitutional rights.
The original Janus v. AFSCME was argued successfully before the Supreme Court by veteran National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger. In a landmark victory, the Court sided with Janus on June 27, 2018, and declared it illegal to force public employees to subsidize a union as a condition of employment. The Court recognized that compelling public workers to pay fees to a union violates their First Amendment rights.
Illinois Child Support Public Servant Intervenes in Lawsuit with Foundation Aid
As a result of Janus, more than five million public sector employees across the country are no longer required to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, Janus’ case continues as he seeks the return of the fees that AFSCME seized from his paycheck without his permission from June 27, 2018, to March 23, 2013, representing the two-year statute of limitations from the date his case started in March 2015 through the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in his favor.
The Janus case began in February 2015, when then-newly elected Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner issued an executive order prohibiting state agencies from requiring employees who had abstained from formal union membership to pay union fees, based on a Right to Work Foundation U.S. Supreme Court victory in 2014 in another Illinois case. Rauner also filed a federal lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that forced union fees violate the First Amendment rights of public workers.
Staff attorneys from the Foundation, in partnership with the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center, filed a motion for Mark Janus and two other plaintiffs to intervene in the case in March 2015, and have represented Janus ever since. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Janus’ motion to file a complaint in intervention, which allowed the suit to move forward even after the court ruled that Rauner lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court permitted union bosses to impose forced union fees on public workers in the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision. However, before the Janus victory, Foundation staff attorneys secured several victories for workers which called the constitutionality of forced fees into question. In 2012, the court ruled in Knox v. SEIU that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for special assessments or risk infringing on their First Amendment rights. In 2014, the court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that requiring home healthcare providers who receive a subsidy from the government to pay union dues is a First Amendment violation.
Following Janus’ groundbreaking win at the Supreme Court in June 2018, Foundation attorneys continued his case in Illinois federal courts, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling is retroactive and that AFSCME should be required to return dues they seized unconstitutionally before the decision. In this and similar cases, union bosses have made a so-called “good faith” argument to defend their seizing of dues before Janus was issued. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled in 2019 that AFSCME could keep the unconstitutional dues, prompting Janus’ petition to the Supreme Court.
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Potentially At Stake
“The Supreme Court agreed that the union taking money from non-members was wrong but the union still has the money it illegally garnished from my paycheck,” commented Janus. “It’s time for AFSCME to give me back the money they wrongfully took.”
Foundation staff attorneys are currently fighting for thousands of workers in about 20 cases which seek refunds of dues seized unconstitutionally before Janus was decided. While Janus is seeking the return of $3,000 of his own money, a favorable decision for him would set a precedent that could result in the return of over $120 million to public servants just in Foundation-backed cases. Other cases brought by workers could bring that total to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Workers Already Winning Refunds of Illegal Dues with Foundation Legal Aid
“The Supreme Court has already sided with the Foundation arguments for Mark Janus and ruled that forcing public employees to fund union activities violates the First Amendment,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “The Supreme Court should take this case again to ensure that public sector union bosses are not permitted to profit from their widespread violation of workers’ First Amendment rights.”
Foundation staff attorneys in July 2018 secured the nation’s first-ever refund of dues seized unconstitutionally before Janus for Debora Nearman, an Oregon state wildlife employee. SEIU bosses were forced to settle and give back to Nearman over $3,000 in illegal fees they had seized from her over two years, during which they had sponsored an aggressive political campaign against her own husband, who ran successfully for the Oregon Legislature in 2016.
NLRB Cases Challenge Coercive ‘Neutrality Agreements’ Used to Impose Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Housekeepers demand NLRB block unionization resulting from back-room “Card Check” deals
From left, housekeepers Lady Laura Javier, Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, and Yesica Perez Barrios are charging hotel officials and union bosses with illegally corralling workers into union ranks with a corrupted “Card Check” recognition.
SEATTLE, WA – Housekeeper Gladys Bryant was granted an appeal by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in her case challenging the use of a so-called “neutrality agreement” between UNITE HERE union officials and her employer to impose a union on the hotel’s workers.
Meanwhile, four Boston housekeepers have filed similar NLRB charges against their employer Yotel Boston and UNITE HERE Local 26, alleging that union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with their employer’s assistance.
General Counsel Finds That UNITE HERE “Card Check” Unionization Was Tainted
Bryant filed the unfair labor practice charges after the UNITE HERE Local 8 union was installed at the Embassy Suites hotel in May 2018 through an oft-abused “Card Check” drive which bypassed the NLRB’s secret ballot election process.
As part of its so-called “neutrality agreement,” Embassy Suites agreed to give union organizers access to the hotel to meet and solicit employees. The agreement also provided union officials with a list of all employees’ names, jobs, and contact information to assist the union in collecting authorization cards from employees.
After NLRB Region 19 officials declined to prosecute the union or employer for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Bryant appealed the case to the NLRB General Counsel in January 2019. The NLRB General Counsel agreed with Bryant’s Foundation attorneys that Embassy Suites provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and thus violated the NLRA.
The NLRB has long held that an employer taints employees’ efforts to remove a union if it gives the employees support such as providing a list of bargaining unit employees or use of company resources. Bryant’s appeal successfully argued that the “ministerial aid” standard must also apply when an employer aids union officials’ efforts to gain monopoly bargaining power over workers.
Boston Housekeepers Argue Union “Card Check” Must Be Overturned
Faced with a similar situation, Boston-area housekeepers Cindy J. Alarcon Vasquez, Lady Laura Javier, Yesica Perez Barrios, and Danela Guzman filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, the housekeepers argue that UNITE HERE union officials violated federal law by imposing union representation on workers through a coercive “Card Check” drive with the assistance of their employer, Yotel Boston.
As in the Seattle case, they charge that Yotel Boston company officials provided UNITE HERE’s organizing campaign with more than “ministerial aid” and therefore illegally tainted the union’s installation as the employees’ exclusive representative in the workplace. The housekeepers charge union officials with violating the NLRA by requesting and accepting the illegal assistance, and the hotel for providing it.
“It is long past time that the NLRB put an end to this biased double standard that allows union bosses to abuse workers’ rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “The General Counsel is correct to finally recognize that what qualifies as more than ‘ministerial assistance and support,’ and thus violates the National Labor Relations Act, cannot depend on whether the employer is helping outside union organizers impose unionization on workers or assisting workers in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union.”
“These cases represent another breakthrough in the Foundation’s challenges to the pro-forced unionism skew at the NLRB,” added LaJeunesse.
