Local Unions Attempt to Circumvent Indiana’s Right to Work Law
Indianapolis, IN (June 14, 2013) – In separate cases, two Indianapolis-area workers have filed charges against two local unions for violating their rights to refrain from union dues payments.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the two workers filed federal unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In one case, Indianapolis AT&T (NYSE: T) worker Joshua Sterrett resigned membership in the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 4900 union on January 21, 2013. Even though CWA Local 4900 union officials acknowledged Sterrett’s union membership resignation on January 30, Sterrett alleges that union officials failed to tell him how he could timely revoke his dues deductions. As a result, he is forced to pay union fees for an additional year.
In the second case, Indianapolis Kroger (NYSE: KR) worker Julie Huffman resigned membership in the United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) Local 700 union in May 2012, when the union did not have a forced dues contract in effect. Although union officials recognized Huffman’s union membership resignation, they informed her that she could not stop deduction of union dues for almost another year.
This year, Huffman attempted to follow the union hierarchy’s instructions on how to stop union dues payments. However, this time the union hierarchy denied her request because it was submitted two days late. UFCW Local 700 union officials continue to collect full union dues from Huffman’s paychecks.
Huffman’s charge alleges that the UFCW union’s restrictions of dues deduction revocations to a 5-day period by certified mail are unreasonable and arbitrary and violate federal law.
«Despite Indiana’s popular new Right to Work law, union officials are illegally extracting union dues and fees from workers by any means possible,» said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «These illegal actions must stop.”»
California Labor Board Upholds Workers’ Decision to Eject Unwanted UFW Union
Salinas, CA (June 14, 2013) – After a prolonged legal battle, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) has determined that a unionization election at Corralitos Farms, Inc. rejecting the United Farm Workers (UFW) union was lawfully conducted. The election was originally held on September 26, 2012, but was subsequently challenged by UFW lawyers after a majority of workers voted against unionization.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys represented employees who opposed the union’s presence and were called to testify at the initial ALRB hearing on the election.
When the ballots were counted last September, a clear majority of employees voted against unionization. UFW operatives refused to accept the results and instead moved to overturn the election by filing charges against Corralitos Farms, alleging that company officials unlawfully influenced the outcome.
UFW lawyers made numerous allegations against the company. However, none were found to have merit by an Administrative Law Judge or the ALRB. In fact, workers represented by the National Right to Work Foundation testified that it was union operatives, not company officials, who attempted to intimidate them.
Despite the UFW’s claims, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the election results on March 1, 2013. After reviewing the case and the UFW’s objections to that ruling, the ALRB also upheld the election results.
“We’re happy to report that the California ALRB has upheld the wishes of the Corralitos Farms employees who decisively voted against unionization last year.” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees who vote against a union shouldn’t be ignored because of trumped-up charges filed by union bosses attempting to reverse the outcome of an election they clearly lost.”
Union Thuggery Watch: Bizarre new photos expose Steelworker union intimidation during West VA strike
In an ongoing case involving four West Virginia Constellium Rolled Products workers who continued to work during last fall’s Steelworker union-instigated strike against the company, recently-obtained photos portray the union militants’ intimidation of those workers.
Union militants put up an outhouse featuring a creepy hanging doll’s head and posted signs publicizing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the workers who continued to work during the strike.
The four workers resigned their union membership in the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 5668 union before they continued to work during the strike. Under federal law, workers who refrain from union membership are exempt from the union’s constitution and bylaws and thus cannot be disciplined for continuing to work during a union boss-ordered strike.
After the strike concluded, the workers received threatening letters from USW Local 5668 union officials stating that the union hierarchy intends to levy retaliatory strike fines against the workers at "the maximum penalty allowed." Union officials also stated that the workers will be placed "at the bottom of the seniority list," which is a clear violation of federal labor law.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, the four workers filed federal charges against the USW Local 5668 union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last month.
If you or someone you know has been harassed, intimidated, or threatened by a union, please contact the National Right to Work Foundation at 1-800-336-3600, via email, or by clicking here.
Harris v. Quinn Supreme Court Update
Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember the case of Pam Harris, an Illinois woman who is challenging an SEIU scheme aimed at forcing her and other homecare providers into union ranks. For the past several years, Harris has received free legal assistance from Foundation staff attorneys.
In November 2011, Harris filed a a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court, challenging the SEIU’s forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates homecare providers’ freedom of association and freedom of speech. Last June, the Supreme Court asked for a brief on the issues presented from the Solicitor General, a move that could indicate heightened interest in the case. The Solicitor General’s brief was filed in early May. Harris’s Foundation-provided staff attorney submitted a reply shortly thereafter.
Although we hoped the Supreme Court would announce whether it would take the case this morning, it was not on today’s orders list, meaning the case will be conferenced again this Thursday. That makes this coming Monday (June 17th) the likely day the Court will announce whether or not it will take the case.
For more information on the case, including links to Harris’s petition and several amicus curiae briefs filed in support of her arguments, check out Scotusblog.
Worker Files Federal Charge After Vehicle Firebombed During Union-Instigated Strike
Worker Files Federal Charge After Vehicle Firebombed During Union-Instigated Strike
Worker charges union militants threatened non-striking workers and their families; police documents show two vehicles damaged
Chicago, IL (June 6, 2013) – A Chicago-area South Water Market, Inc. worker has filed a federal charge against a Chicago Teamster union local alleging that union militants threatened him, his family and his property, and that his personal property was damaged shortly after he received those threats.
The worker filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The Teamsters Local 703 union has been on strike at South Water Market. However, some of the workers are not union members and refuse to abandon their jobs. Under federal law, workers who are not union members cannot be disciplined for continuing to work during a strike.
According to the charge, union agents harassed and threatened nonmember workers who continue working to support their families. In the charge, the worker alleges that his personal property was damaged soon after the threats.
Worker Files Federal Charge After Truck Firebombed During Union-Instigated Strike
Chicago, IL (June 6, 2013) – A Chicago-area South Water Market, Inc. worker has filed a federal charge against a Chicago Teamster union local alleging that union militants threatened him, his family and his property, and that his personal property was damaged shortly after he received those threats.
The worker filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The Teamsters Local 703 union has been on strike at South Water Market. However, some of the workers are not union members and refuse to abandon their jobs. Under federal law, workers who are not union members cannot be disciplined for continuing to work during a strike.
According to the charge, union agents harassed and threatened nonmember workers who continue working to support their families. In the charge, the worker alleges that his personal property was damaged soon after the threats.
Two Chicago Police Department «Victim of Information Notices» reflect reports of property damage, one incident «by fire.»
A video posted on Youtube.com purports to show security camera footage of a South Water Market work truck on fire while someone on the sidewalk watches. The video also shows a fire truck responding to the scene and the purported damage to the truck after the fire was extinguished. Moreover, the video shows striking Teamster union militants asking each other «are we gonna kill ‘em or what?» and stating that they are going to «test the guys out today» while posing like boxers.
«Teamster union toughs are apparently trying to intimidate workers who had the courage not to toe the union line and instead provide for their families,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Workers should never be subjected to violence or threats of violence under any circumstance.»
The worker filed the charge against the Teamster Local 703 union, seeking compensatory damages. He filed the charge for himself and other similarly-situated workers.
Minnesota Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Minnesota Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Childcare providers fight dictate to push childcare business owners into union forced dues ranks
Minneapolis, MN (June 5, 2013) – A group of Minnesota home-based childcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new law that seeks to forcibly unionize the state’s home-based childcare providers.
Jennifer Parrish from Rochester and 11 other providers from around the state filed the suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Parrish and other providers seek to halt implementation of a recently-passed law intended to designate Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state, who are either business owners or family members who take care of children within their families.
Minnesota Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme
Minneapolis, MN (June 5, 2013) – A group of Minnesota home-based childcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new law that seeks to forcibly unionize the state’s home-based childcare providers.
Jennifer Parrish from Rochester and 11 other providers from around the state filed the suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Parrish and other providers seek to halt implementation of a recently-passed law intended to designate Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state, who are either business owners or family members who take care of children within their families.
Home-based childcare and personal care providers have challenged similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states across the country, including Michigan and Illinois. The Illinois case is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Michigan ended its scheme after Foundation attorneys filed suit for providers there.
Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government. The government does not have the power to force citizens to accept its handpicked political representation to lobby itself. Under the Minnesota scheme, after the union is installed it will then be empowered to confiscate dues from childcare providers for this forced «exclusive representation.
«Citizens have the power to select their political representation in government, not the other way around,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This scheme, which forces small business owners, and even grandma taking care of her grandchildren, into union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear.»
«This union boss power grab scheme is nothing more than pure political payback and was popularized by disgraced Governors Gray Davis of California and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.»
Many of the 12 providers previously challenged in federal court Governor Mark Dayton’s executive order that also sought to force the state’s homecare providers into union ranks. That suit was rendered moot after a state court struck down Dayton’s executive order as outside his authority under state law.
Updated Analysis: Right to Work States Still Enjoying Faster Growth, Residents Have Higher Purchasing Power
Tthe National Institute for Labor Relations Research has updated its fact sheet comparing various statistics in Right to Work states and forced-unionism states, and Right to Work states continue to enjoy more growth and purchasing power for citizens than their forced-unionism counterparts.
Over the past ten years, private sector employment opportunities in Right to Work states have grown by 6.4%, compared to just 0.4% job growth in states that allow forced unionism. Other economic indicators – from purchasing power to employee compensation – are equally stark. No matter how you slice the numbers, Right to Work states simply perform better than their forced-unionism neighbors.
The case for Right to Work laws has always rested on the importance of employee freedom, but it’s nice to know that protecting worker rights has other, more tangible benefits. Over the past several years, studies, surveys, and job reports have all confirmed that freedom in the workplace yields impressive economic results.
Click here for the full NILRR fact sheet.
Appeals Court Upholds Tenneco Workers’ Decision to Eject Unwanted Union
Washington, DC (June 3, 2013) – After a seven year legal struggle, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has finally upheld Tenneco workers’ decision to eject the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 660 union. UAW lawyers had held up the decertification process by claiming that unfair labor practices perpetrated by Tenneco caused employee disaffection with the union, but the Court of Appeals concluded that there was “no substantial evidence” to back up this claim.
Lonnie Tremain, the Tenneco employee who first circulated a petition to decertify the union, received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys during the legal battle to remove the UAW, including legal representation at the U. S. Court of Appeals.
In December 2006, 24 of the 31 employees at Tenneco’s Grass Lake, Michigan facility presented company officials with a decertification petition seeking the removal of UAW Local 660. Union lawyers responded by filing a series of unfair labor practice charges against Tenneco, claiming that the company’s treatment of the union had caused employees to turn against the UAW.
Among other things, UAW lawyers claimed that Tenneco’s refusal to turn over the home addresses and personal contact information of non-striking workers violated the National Labor Relations Act. Company officials say they were concerned about the possibility of union intimidation and violence.
Although an administrative law judge ruled that the decertification petition was valid and untainted by any Tenneco actions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined in 2011 that the company’s unfair labor practices contributed to employees’ anti-union sentiment. After Tenneco appealed, the DC Court of Appeals overturned the NLRB’s ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence that the company did anything to influence its employees’ decision to get rid of the UAW.
Once a union is established as the monopoly bargaining agent for a workplace, it is very difficult to remove. Union officials can dictate terms and conditions of employment for all workers, even those who are not union members. In states without Right to Work laws, nonunion employees can also be forced to pay union dues.
“After a long legal battle, Tenneco employees have finally ejected the UAW,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees who wish rid to themselves of a union shouldn’t be punished for their employer’s alleged transgressions or because of trumped up charges from union bosses attempting to stop a union decertification. Unfortunately, the Obama NLRB is more concerned with furthering Big Labor’s interests than respecting employees’ wishes.”
