Chicago, IL (January 17, 2013) – Two Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) workers have won a settlement from a local Machinist union after union brass illegally charged them full union dues and attempted to punish them for working during a highly-publicized strike against the company even though the workers were not union members.

The settlement stems from a federal unfair labor practice charge Daniel Eggleston and Steven Olsen filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union and its local District Lodge 851 affiliate.

Eggleston and Olsen have refrained from union membership in the IAM union for years and are thus exempted from the union hierarchy’s constitution and bylaws. On May 1, Machinists Local 851 union bosses ordered all of the over 800 Rockdale Caterpillar workers on strike. Eggleston and Olsen, along with over a hundred other workers, continued to work despite IAM union boss demands.

In response, IAM Local 851 union bosses demanded that Eggleston and Olsen, and scores of other workers, appear before a union tribunal to be disciplined for refusing to leave their jobs during the strike. However, under federal law, workers who are not union members cannot be disciplined for continuing to work during a union boss-ordered strike.

Moreover, despite the fact that Eggleston and Olsen exercised their right under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communication Workers v. Beck not to pay full union dues, Local 851 union officials continued to extract full dues from their paychecks and then forced them to jump through hoops to get back the money the union illegally took.

Because Illinois does not have a Right to Work law, workers who refrain from union membership can be forced to pay part of union dues and fees. However, the Court held in Beck that workers who refrain from union membership cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as politics and ideological causes.

The union hierarchy was forced to settle Eggleston and Olsen’s charge. The union officials dropped their attempts to punish the two workers for continuing to work during the strike and agreed to refund the amount of union dues illegally taken from the workers’ paychecks.

Foundation attorneys anticipate that charges will be filed for other Caterpillar workers at the facility in the coming weeks. Some other workers who contacted the Foundation for free legal aid were fined over $30,000 by the union.

«Militant IAM union bosses are trying to intimidate over a hundred Caterpillar workers who had the temerity to not toe the union line and instead provide for their families,» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «This case underscores the need for an Illinois Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.»

Elkton, MD (January 16, 2012) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, IKEA employees Kelvin Smith and Robert Rammel have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against their employer and the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union. Smith and Rammel allege that IKEA and IAM officials failed to notify them of their rights to refrain from union membership and opt out of some union dues.

In Maryland and other states without Right to Work laws, employees can be required to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. However, workers also have the right to refrain from formally joining a union and opt out of paying for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as lobbying and political activism.

Not only did IAM officials and IKEA fail to notify Smith, Rammel, and their coworkers of their rights, they actively misled employees about their obligations to the union. IAM officials claimed that joining the union and paying full dues were required as a condition of employment.

Moreover, the IAM’s membership application hid a notice to employees about their right to refrain from full dues-paying union membership in small, hard-to-decipher tan print on the back of a pink form. IAM officials also told employees that their obligation to pay full dues superseded that notice, regardless of what the text said about federal law.

Finally, IAM officials threatened to have Smith and Rammel fired if they refused to join the union and pay full dues.

Smith and Rammel’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“Union officials actively misled IKEA employees about their rights in order to collect more forced dues cash for the IAM’s coffers,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Independent-minded workers will continue to face similar schemes until Maryland passes a Right to Work law, which would ensure that union membership and dues payment are completely voluntary.”

Supreme Court Asks for Solicitor General’s Brief in Backroom Union Organizing Case

Right to Work legal challenge could determine if companies are allowed to hand over sensitive employee information to aggressive union organizers

Washington, DC (January 14, 2012) – Today, the United States Supreme Court requested a brief from the U.S. Solicitor General in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that could determine if companies are allowed to hand over workers’ personal information to union organizers in exchange for union concessions at the employees’ expense.

Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

"We’re pleased the Supreme Court wants more views on Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that has important implications for worker rights. Big Labor organizers should not be able to offer secret deals for workers they have no relationship with that exchange union concessions for employees’ personal information. The Labor Management Relations Act is intended to prevent backroom payoffs to union officials like the ones at issue in Mulhall, which is why the Supreme Court should take the case and make sure that law does not become an empty letter."

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (January 14, 2013) – Today, the United States Supreme Court requested a brief from the U.S. Solicitor General in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that could determine if companies are allowed to hand over workers’ personal information to union organizers in exchange for union concessions at the employees’ expense.

Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

"We’re pleased the Supreme Court wants more views on Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that has important implications for worker rights. Big Labor organizers should not be able to offer secret deals for workers they have no relationship with that exchange union concessions for employees’ personal information. The Labor Management Relations Act is intended to prevent backroom payoffs to union officials like the ones at issue in Mulhall, which is why the Supreme Court should take the case and make sure that law does not become an empty letter."

With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit challenging an organizing pact between his employer and UNITE HERE in 2008. Under the Labor Management Relations Act, employers are prohibited from handing over "any money or other thing of value" to union organizers, a provision that is supposed to prevent union officials from selling out workers’ rights in exchange for corporate concessions. Mulhall argued that the company’s concessions, such as giving organizers employees’ personal information, were of substantial monetary value because they made UNITE HERE’s organizing drive easier and less expensive.

Mulhall won a significant victory last spring, when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the company’s organizing assistance could constitute "a thing of value." UNITE HERE lawyers quickly petitioned the Supreme Court for review, prompting Foundation attorneys to file a cross-petition asking the Court to examine certain aspects of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. Foundation attorneys believe that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision was too narrowly tailored to always prevent companies from aiding union organizers with valuable concessions.

Alaska State Troopers Seek to Handcuff Government Union Boss Forced Dues Powers

Relying on landmark Knox Supreme Court decision, Troopers seek to end automatic dues deduction for politics from non-member state employees

Anchorage, AK (January 8, 2013) – Five Alaska State Troopers have filed the first federal lawsuit that seeks to expand public employees’ right to refrain from paying union dues used for union politics in light of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Knox v. SEIU.

Robin Benning, Patrick Johnson, Andrew Neason, Chris Terry, and Ken VanSpronsen filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in Anchorage with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The troopers refrain from formal union membership in the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) union, an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 803. Because they are not formal union members, the troopers have a right not to pay the part of union dues used for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU decision that California state employees who refrain from formal union membership could not be compelled to pay for union politicking via a «special assessment» for a self-described «political fight back fund.» The Court’s majority ruled for the first time that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for union politicking.

The Alaskan troopers are seeking to expand that decision to apply to all instances when public employees refrain from union membership.

Click here to read the full release.

Anchorage, AK (January 8, 2013) – Five Alaska State Troopers have filed the first federal lawsuit that seeks to expand public employees’ right to refrain from paying union dues used for union politics in light of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Knox v. SEIU.

Robin Benning, Patrick Johnson, Andrew Neason, Chris Terry, and Ken VanSpronsen filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in Anchorage with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The troopers refrain from formal union membership in the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) union, an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 803. Because they are not formal union members, the troopers have a right not to pay the part of union dues used for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU decision that California state employees who refrain from formal union membership could not be compelled to pay for union politicking via a «special assessment» for a self-described «political fight back fund.» The Court’s majority ruled for the first time that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for union politicking.

The Alaskan troopers are seeking to expand that decision to apply to all instances when public employees refrain from union membership, as all nonmember public employees are currently required to invoke their right to refrain from paying union dues for union politics. Nonmember public employees who do not affirmatively object to paying full union dues are now automatically compelled to pay full union dues from their paychecks – including the dues used for union boss politics. Worse, workers who do exercise their right not to pay full union dues are required to renew their objections annually.

«Union bosses have the government-granted power to automatically compel workers to fund their political activities unless workers object – a power granted to no other private organization in our country,» said Mark Mix, president of National Right to Work. «The First Amendment right for workers who refrain from union membership to automatically refrain from paying union dues for politics is long overdue.»

Early last year, Benning and Johnson sued the PSEA union and the state after union and state officials continued to deduct full union dues from the troopers’ paychecks even though they resigned from union membership. That case was eventually settled.

Local Cold Storage Warehouse Worker Files Federal Charge against Company for Discrimination

Americold Logistics management seek to put on ice workers’ push to remove union

Rochelle, IL (December 31, 2012) – An Americold Logistics warehouse employee has filed a federal charge against the company for violating her rights.

Karen Cox of Dixon filed the federal charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

A local affiliate of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unionized Cox’s workplace in June 2012. However, union and company officials have yet to reach a contract. Cox began a campaign to remove the unwanted union from her workplace. However, Americold company management is denying her the same access it granted union organizers, preventing her from informing her coworkers of the downsides of unionization and asking them to petition the NLRB for a secret ballot election to remove the union hierarchy.

Click here to read the full release.

Rochelle, IL (December 31, 2012) – An Americold Logistics warehouse employee has filed a federal charge against the company for violating her rights.

Karen Cox of Dixon filed the federal charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

A local affiliate of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unionized Cox’s workplace in June 2012. However, union and company officials have yet to reach a contract. Cox began a campaign to remove the unwanted union from her workplace. However, Americold company management is denying her the same access it granted union organizers, preventing her from informing her coworkers of the downsides of unionization and asking them to petition the NLRB for a secret ballot election to remove the union hierarchy.

On December 10, Americold management discriminately enforced its policy to bar Cox and other independent-minded employees from collecting petition signatures while off duty, even threatening to fire Cox from her job if she continued – while non-employee union organizers are given wide-ranging access to company facilities to counteract Cox’s efforts. The charges allege that Americold Logistics is discriminating against workers like Cox and giving union organizers unlawful support and assistance to squash the workers’ efforts to remove the union from their workplace – in violation of NLRB precedent.

Because Illinois does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Cox and her coworkers undoubtedly will be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment once company and union officials reach a contract.

«Americold Logistics management gave union organizers license to browbeat employees into acceding to unionization but is discriminating against workers who wish to remain free from union affiliation and dues payments,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Unfortunately, companies like Americold all too often sell out workers in exchange for short-term concessions from union officials.»

Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for their workers. Recent public polling shows that 80 percent of Americans and union members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.

Two El Paso Hospitals Face Federal Prosecution for Violating Nurses’ Rights

Union and hospital officials entered into underhanded agreement to foist union representation on nurses

El Paso, TX (December 19, 2012) – Two local hospitals are facing a federal prosecution for denying access to nurses opposed to unionization while giving union organizers preferential access in order to unionize the nurses.

In the wake of federal charges filed by two nurses with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix issued formal complaints against Tenet Hospitals Ltd. and its two hospitals in El Paso, Providence Memorial Hospital and Sierra Medical Center.

California Nurses Association-affiliated National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union officials entered into a «neutrality agreement» with Tenet designed to grease the skids for the nurses’ unionization. Tenet was applying that agreement when it took its illicit action to discriminate against nurses opposed to NNOC union representation.

Click here to read the full release.

El Paso, TX (December 19, 2012) – Two local hospitals are facing a federal prosecution for denying access to nurses opposed to unionization while giving union organizers preferential access in order to unionize the nurses.

In the wake of federal charges filed by two nurses with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix issued formal complaints against Tenet Hospitals Ltd. and its two hospitals in El Paso, Providence Memorial Hospital and Sierra Medical Center.

California Nurses Association-affiliated National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union officials entered into a «neutrality agreement» with Tenet designed to grease the skids for the nurses’ unionization. Tenet was applying that agreement when it took its illicit action to discriminate against nurses opposed to NNOC union representation.

The «neutrality agreement» gives union organizers wide-ranging access to employee break rooms, lounges, and other company facilities. On the other hand, Tenet refused to grant nurses who oppose unionization equal access to its facilities, going so far as to change workplace procedures to deny off-duty nurses access to company facilities.

Despite the company’s blatant viewpoint discrimination, a group of nurses led by Registered Nurses Jose Rodriguez of Sierra Medical Center and Perry Pielaet of Providence Memorial Hospital are working to educate their fellow nurses about the impact of unionization. Rodriguez and Pielaet filed the charges that spurred the NLRB’s investigation into the matter.

«So-called ‘neutrality agreements’ like this one between union officials and hospital management are hardly neutral: They give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Unfortunately, Tenet management is selling out its workers and aiding union bosses’ quest to unionize every nurse in the country.»