Obama Labor Board Launches Assault on Workers’ Right to Secret Ballot to Remove Unwanted Union
Washington, DC (September 1, 2010) – In a decision dated August 27 but only released yesterday, three members of the National Labor Relations Board granted review of a landmark 2007 case in which the federal labor board granted employees the right to demand a secret ballot election to remove an unwanted union within 45 days after the union obtained monopoly bargaining status through the coercive card check process.
In late 2009, union lawyers initiated a strategy to overturn the Dana Corp. decision won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. In a series of cases nationwide, union lawyers asked the NLRB to revoke the new protections to workers swept into union ranks through card check forced unionism, and now three members of the Board – all former union lawyers themselves – have agreed to consolidate two of those cases in a review of Dana.
As the dissenting Board members point out, workers across the country have already used Dana decertification elections to kick out unwanted unions, demonstrating the unreliability of card check instant organizing campaigns. Workers frequently sign union authorization cards due to union organizers’ intimidating tactics or even outright lies about what signing a card means. To remove the limited protection of the secret ballot in these cases – as the Obama NLRB appears set to do – would deny workers the ability to vote according to their conscience and remove an unwanted union from their workplace.
The Board’s decision to reconsider Dana highlights concerns over one member’s ethics and impartiality. President Obama’s radical recess appointee Craig Becker joined in the decision to revisit Dana despite his own participation as a lawyer for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in that very case.
In response to over a dozen motions for recusal brought by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Becker agreed to recuse himself in a case that serves as a sequel to Dana because he coauthored a brief jointly filed by the AFL-CIO and United Auto Workers (UAW). However, he refused to recuse himself from two of the cases (AT&T Mobility and Aramark) in which union lawyers are seeking to overturn Dana because “[n]either of [his] former employers is a party or represents a party” in those cases.
But that’s only true if one accepts Becker’s shaky distinction between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its local affiliate unions (Aramark involves the Service Workers United union, an affiliate of the SEIU). Foundation attorneys have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Becker’s participation in cases involving SEIU local unions violates his ethics pledge.
As Foundation attorneys point out, while Becker contends the national and local unions are “separate and distinct legal entit[ies],” the SEIU itself considers locals to be “constituent subordinate bodies.” Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies.
The Obama NLRB’s decision to revisit Dana even appears designed to sidestep Becker’s ethics problem. Even though Aramark is also pending, the Board only consolidated two challenges to Dana, neither of which involves the SEIU or its affiliates. That means Becker could overturn the Dana precedent even though he participated as a union lawyer in the original Dana case and even though doing so would directly benefit his former employer in another pending case.
“While President Obama and members of Congress continue to push for a federal bill that would end the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, an obscure federal agency stacked with former union lawyers is poised to eliminate the private vote for workers who have been subjected to unreliable and coercive card check campaigns,” explained Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
“This is just the beginning of the Obama NLRB’s assault on freedom in the workplace, and individual employees are the ones who will pay the price,” continued Mix.
Mark Mix in DC Examiner: Union Bosses vs. Education Reform
In an op-ed this week in the Washington Examiner, National Right to Work President Mark Mix discusses the threat to real education reform posed by teacher union bosses in Washington, DC.
Just a few weeks ago, Samuel Johnson’s centuries-old observation that a man’s knowledge he is to be hanged “concentrates his mind wonderfully” seemed quite applicable to Washington Teacher Union (WTU) President George Packer.
Of course, no one was threatening Packer with the rope or any of its modern-day equivalents when they agreed to a new contract in late June making it significantly easier for D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to dismiss ineffective teachers.
But when he signed off on the new contract, Packer, whose WTU is a subsidiary of the mammoth American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union, faced a Big Labor boss’s worst nightmare, a rapid decline in the number of employees forced to pay to his union dues or fees in order to keep their jobs.
As recently as 2003, there were roughly 5,000 D.C. teachers who had to accept the WTU as their monopoly-bargaining agent and pay union dues or fees as a job condition. Today, there are barely 4,000. Despite the best efforts of Packer and AFT union czarina Randi Weingarten, that number is set to drop still further over the next few years.
Over the years, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have provided free legal aid to teachers whose rights have been violated by compulsory unionism. Read about some of these cases here, here, and here.
Card Check Forced Unionism «Presents Serious Legal and Policy Issues»
Today, House Republican leader John Boehner called on President Barack Obama to veto any controversial legislation that passes during the post-midterm election lame-duck Congressional session. One of those controversial bills is the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.
As Right to Work Foundation legal director Ray J. LaJeunesse details in the Spring 2010 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics journal, this draconian bill’s three primary provisions contain many injustices toward American workers and job providers.
Regarding the bill’s provision to strip workers of their rights to a secret ballot election and opening them up to intimidating "home visits":
…the absence of a formal election process works an obvious unfairness, facilitates intimidation and deception of workers, and runs contrary to the American tradition of secret ballots and the freedom to vote in privacy. The United States Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue, recognizing that “secret elections are generally the most satisfactory—indeed the preferred—method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.”
There also is a serious question whether EFCA will unconstitutionally deny employers and employees their free speech rights… Because there would be no open campaign leading up to a secret-ballot election, EFCA would eliminate open debate, thus curtailing the speech rights of employers and individual employees opposed to the union.
As for the unconstitutational, government-mandated binding arbitration provision:
Mandatory governmentally-imposed binding interest arbitration… runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Moreover, in requiring governmentally-imposed arbitrators to dictate contract terms, EFCA would unconstitutionally take the property of employers and give that property to their employees (as wages, for example) for a non-public use, in violation of the takings clause…
And finally, regarding the lopsided nature of the penalties imposed on job providers:
These drastic new penalties for unfair labor practices that apply to employers but not to unions raise concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and may violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
These one-sided changes in the NLRA’s remedial scheme would adversely affect employees as well as employers. With the Damoclean sword of punitive remedies looming, employers faced with union organizing campaigns will be more likely to gag themselves to avoid unfair labor practice charges by unions, thus depriving employees of the “information opposing unionization,” which they have an implicit “right to receive” under NLRA section 7, and which is necessary to make an informed and free choice about whether to support unionization or not.
As LaJeunesse clearly explains, the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill certainly "presents serious legal and policy issues" indeed.
The full article is published in the Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 14, No. 2.
Michelle Malkin: «President Obama’s fraudulent ethics pledge»
In her latest syndicated column, Michelle Malkin highlights the National Right to Work Foundation’s request that Attorney General Eric Holder investigate National Labor Relations Board Member Craig Becker for violating his ethics pledge by participating in cases involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
As Malkin notes, Becker’s weak standard for recusal rests on a faulty distinction between the national union and its local affiliates.
It’s no surprise that Becker now refuses to hold himself accountable for the ethics pledge he himself signed in April. As the past two years have taught us, Team Obama’s operational slogan is: Rules are for fools. The contractual ethics commitment states: "I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts." Yet, Becker has participated in numerous NLRB cases involving the SEIU and its affiliates — and is parsing the definition of "former employer" by arguing that local SEIU chapters are "separate and distinct legal entities" that don’t fall under the ethics rules.
The National Right to Work Foundation, which has fought both national and local SEIU officials in court on behalf of rank-and-file workers’ rights, eviscerates Becker’s lawyerly blather. SEIU’s own constitution considers local affiliates "constituent subordinate bodies" of the national union, the foundation notes. "Moreover, in 2009 over 85 percent of the SEIU’s receipts came from a per capita tax on the locals’ membership dues and fees. The national union even has the power to assume control over its locals if they do not conform to International policies."
Malkin also rightly ties Becker’s installment onto the federal labor board into the Obama Administration’s pattern of granting special privileges and hidden paybacks to the union bosses.
Read Malkin’s entire column here and more from our Freedom@Work blog on Craig Becker here and here.
Wall Street Journal: Craig Becker’s «Recusal Refusal»
The Wall Street Journal slammed Obama recess appointee Craig Becker this week for participating in cases before the National Labor Relations Board involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU):
In his few months at the NLRB, Mr. Becker, former associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union, has refused to recuse himself from most cases involving his former employer. This despite the fact that Mr. Becker signed the Obama Administration’s vaunted ethics pledge, in which he promised to refrain for two years from participating in "any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer."
In true lawyerly fashion, Mr. Becker is now running for the loopholes, arguing that the SEIU proper is a "distinct legal entity" that is different from local SEIU unions. Having liberated himself from that legal barrier, Mr. Becker says he intends to continue judging disputes that feature local SEIU shops. He even convinced the NLRB’s inspector general—who was asked to investigate one of the failure-to-recuse cases—to buy the separate legal entity line.
From a technical legal standpoint, SEIU locals may well be distinct from Mr. Becker’s former employer. Yet the clear intention of President Obama’s ethics pledge was to eliminate obvious political conflicts of interest. The example of a former SEIU lawyer like Mr. Becker sitting in judgment on cases featuring SEIU locals is Conflict 101.
No one understands better than Mr. Becker the deep organizational and financial ties between the SEIU and its locals, having been the attorney who crafted national legal strategies for use by SEIU locals everywhere. NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman (another Obama appointee) has applied a more rigorous and appropriate standard of recusal for herself in cases involving her former employer, the Teamsters.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing workers in several cases involving SEIU locals, sent a letter Monday requesting that the Department of Justice investigate whether Mr. Becker has violated his pledge. Let’s hope Attorney General Eric Holder isn’t as cavalier about that request as President Obama was with Mr. Becker’s appointment.
Read more about the Foundation’s letter to Attorney General Holder.
Kansas City Nurse Challenges Backroom Union Deal to Silence Employees Who Oppose Unionization
Kansas City Nurse Challenges Backroom Union Deal to Silence Employees Who Oppose Unionization
Research Medical Center nurse files federal unfair labor practice charges against secret “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential treatment
Kansas City, MO (August 12, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Kansas City nurse has filed unfair labor practice charges against two unions and her employer for signing a “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential access to Research Medical Center.
Mary Hill and many other nurses oppose unionization at Research Medical Center. Despite these reservations, HCA, Inc., Research Medical Center’s parent company, agreed to help organizers from two collaborating unions impose monopoly bargaining on Hill and her colleagues.
Hill states that, facing pressure from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and California Nurses Association (CNA) union organizers, the company signed a secret “neutrality agreement” with officials from both unions.
Kansas City Nurse Challenges Backroom Union Deal to Silence Employees Who Oppose Unionization
Kansas City, MO (August 12, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Kansas City nurse has filed unfair labor practice charges against two unions and her employer for signing a “neutrality agreement” that gives union organizers preferential access to Research Medical Center.
Mary Hill and many other nurses oppose unionization at Research Medical Center. Despite these reservations, HCA, Inc., Research Medical Center’s parent company, agreed to help organizers from two collaborating unions impose monopoly bargaining on Hill and her colleagues.
Hill states that, facing pressure from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and California Nurses Association (CNA) union organizers, the company signed a secret “neutrality agreement” with officials from both unions.
Although the exact terms of this secret pact are unknown, HCA has given CNA and SEIU organizers wide-ranging access to employee break rooms, lounges, and other company facilities. On the other hand, HCA is refusing to grant employees who oppose unionization equal access to its facilities, and has gagged supervisors from discussing unionization with concerned employees.
Although it appears the “skids have been greased” for union officials to gain monopoly bargaining control of employees at Research Medical Center, employees who oppose unionization are thus left at a disadvantage. CNA union officials are already facing charges for using similar tactics during union organizing drives at Philadelphia and Houston hospitals.
Hill’s complaint will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.
“Caught between union bosses and corporate executives who sell out employees to gain what will likely be very short term union boss favors, Kansas City employees have been stripped of their rights to organize against forced unionism in their workplace,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Medical professionals shouldn’t be subjected to backroom deals that give union operatives preferential treatment at the expense of employees’ workplace rights.”
Boeing Employees Respond to Union Boss Bullying with Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Boeing Employees Respond to Union Boss Bullying with Unfair Labor Practice Charges
UAW union bosses seek to punish workers who refused to abandon jobs during a union-instigated strike
Los Angeles, CA (August 9, 2010) – Three employees at the Carson Boeing plant have filed federal charges against the United Auto Worker (UAW) union in response to local union officials’ efforts to illegally punish them for exercising their rights to resign from formal union membership.
Before working during a UAW Local 148-instigated strike, the three employees exercised their right, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB (1985), to resign from formal, full dues-paying union membership.
The UAW Local 148 union hierarchy began internal union disciplinary procedures against the nonmember employees for refusing to abandon their jobs despite receiving their resignation letters before the union boss-ordered strike. Union officials have no legal power to punish nonmember employees for honoring their commitments to their employer as long as they first resigned their union membership.
Foundation attorneys have represented independent-minded employees across the country who suffered from union boss retaliation for refusing to abandon their jobs during union boss-ordered strikes. In some cases, nonmember employees have experienced sham disciplinary proceedings and even confiscatory fines to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
Worker Advocate Asks Attorney General Holder to Investigate Apparent Violations of Obama Ethics Pledge by Labor Board Member
Worker Advocate Asks Attorney General Holder to Investigate Apparent Violations of Obama Ethics Pledge by Labor Board Member
Craig Becker, Obama’s recess NLRB appointee, has rejected requests to recuse himself from pending cases involving his former employer
Washington, DC (August 9, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees, today asked United States Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recess appointee Craig Becker’s participation in cases involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Earlier this summer, Right to Work attorneys filed more than a dozen recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the SEIU and AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the NLRB during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s in-house lawyer, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation clients and developed legal strategies for SEIU local affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.
Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers, the SEIU, or its subordinate affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has refused to recuse himself in every case but one.
Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed. The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.
Boeing Employees Respond to Union Boss Bullying with Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Los Angeles, CA (August 9, 2010) – Three employees at the Carson Boeing plant have filed federal charges against the United Auto Worker (UAW) union in response to local union officials’ efforts to illegally punish them for exercising their rights to resign from formal union membership.
Before working during a UAW Local 148-instigated strike, the three employees exercised their right, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB (1985), to resign from formal, full dues-paying union membership.
The UAW Local 148 union hierarchy began internal union disciplinary procedures against the nonmember employees for refusing to abandon their jobs despite receiving their resignation letters before the union boss-ordered strike. Union officials have no legal power to punish nonmember employees for honoring their commitments to their employer as long as they first resigned their union membership.
Foundation attorneys have represented independent-minded employees across the country who suffered from union boss retaliation for refusing to abandon their jobs during union boss-ordered strikes. In some cases, nonmember employees have experienced sham disciplinary proceedings and even confiscatory fines to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
“In these tough economic times, it is unconscionable for UAW union bosses to retaliate against nonmember workers for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Boeing employees who exercise their long-recognized right to resign from union membership at any time should be allowed to make a living without the fear of harassment and intimidation for not toeing the union boss line.”
The NLRB regional office will now investigate the charges and decide whether to issue a formal complaint and prosecute the union.
