1 Jun 2022
29 May 2022

After 18 Months, Mountaire Farms Workers Finally Oust Union

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

31 Mar 2022

Nurses at Massachusetts Hospital Move to Boot Union After Divisive Strike

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

26 May 2022

Casino Worker Challenges Order Installing Unwanted Union via ‘Card Check’

LAS VEGAS, NV – A large
majority of the workers at Red Rock
Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada voted
“no” to unionization, but a federal
district court judge ordered their
employer to bargain with union
officials anyway. Casino officials
appealed, and Red Rock employee
Raynell Teske supported their efforts
to overturn the judge’s coercive order
that overrides the choice workers
made at the ballot box.
With free Foundation legal aid,
Teske filed a brief arguing that the
district judge had no reason to
impose a union onto workers who
had already soundly voted to reject
it. A Ninth Circuit panel denied the
initial appeal, but issued an unusual
concurring opinion in which all
three judges said they disagreed with
that outcome, but were bound by
Ninth Circuit precedent to uphold
the district judge’s order.
Binding precedent can only be
overturned through an en banc
hearing before a larger Ninth Circuit
panel. Red Rock lawyers filed for an
en banc rehearing of their appeal.The
court then ordered National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) lawyers
defending the order to respond,
another signal the judges may be
willing to overturn this ridiculous
precedent and rule in the workers’
favor. Teske filed a second amicus
brief, urging the court to hear the
case en banc.
Judge Overrides Workers’
Vote Against Union
‘Representation’
The situation at Red Rock began in
December 2019, when the NLRB held
a secret-ballot election on whether
to unionize the Casino’s workers.
Employees rejected union officials’
effort to become their monopoly
bargaining “representatives” in an
NLRB-supervised vote by a nearly
100-vote margin. Despite that
outcome, NLRB Region 28 Director
Cornele Overstreet sought a federal
court injunction imposing the union
over the workers’ objections.
On July 20, 2021, District Judge
Gloria Navarro agreed with the
NLRB Director’s request, and
ordered Red Rock to bargain with
union officials despite the employees’
vote against unionization. The judge
said the order was justified because
union officials claimed that, before
the vote, a majority of workers had
signed union authorization cards.
Teske’s amicus briefs argue those
“Card Check” signatures don’t prove
that union officials 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.
Her briefs point out that the
NLRB and federal courts have long
recognized that secret ballots are a
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 officials know that Card
Check signatures do not indicate
solid worker support. The AFL-CIO
admitted in its internal organizing
handbook that it needed at least 75%
Card Check support before having
even a 50-50 chance of winning a
secret-ballot election. Union bosses
prefer Card Check unionization
because they can more easily take
control of workplaces where they
lack popular support, and partisan
NLRB appointees now are working
to grant their wish.
Partisan NLRB Pushes
Unreliable ‘Card Check’
Past legislative attempts to enact
Card Check unionization, including
the so-called “PRO Act,” pending
in the U.S. Senate right now, faced
bipartisan opposition. However,
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer
Abruzzo, a former high-ranking
union lawyer, believes she can
implement Card Check without
congressional approval. Abruzzo has
expressed interest in resurrecting
a decades-old NLRB doctrine that
allows unions to sue employers to
try to force them to automatically
bargain whenever the union
possesses a pile of untested union
cards.
“There is no reason why district
court judges or NLRB bureaucrats
should be able to override workers’
choice at the ballot box,” said
National Right to Work Foundation
Vice President Patrick Semmens. “A
favorable ruling for Raynell Teske
and her colleagues could provide
legal ammunition for future workers
if the NLRB tries to force them to
accept union officials for whom they
never even had a chance to vote.”

27 May 2022

District Court Orders Connecticut State Police to Turn Over Evidence in Former Sergeant’s Retaliation Suit

Posted in News Releases

District Court Orders Connecticut State Police to Turn Over Evidence in Former Sergeant’s Retaliation Suit

Veteran officer was transferred out of prestigious position for asserting his workplace rights, choosing not to be a union member

Hartford, CT (May 27, 2022) – A federal judge has just ordered Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner James Rovella to turn over evidence in a federal retaliation lawsuit filed in 2016 by Joseph Mercer, a former Connecticut State Trooper.
Mercer, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, charged Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) and state officials with knocking him out of a prestigious command position because he exercised his First Amendment rights to refrain from union membership and oppose the union’s political activity.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Rovella to turn over certain documents relevant to Mercer’s claims. According to the orders, these documents could be relevant to determining whether union and state police officials treated Mercer unfairly because he dissociated from CSPU.
Union Officials Fought to Remove Union Opponent from Prestigious Position He Was Qualified For
Mercer, a former state trooper, says he was transferred from his command position with the Emergency Services Unit because he resigned from the union and refrained from supporting its political agenda.
In May 2015, Sergeant Mercer was appointed Operations Sergeant of the Emergency Services Unit, a prestigious command position that entails significant responsibility for Emergency Services training and field operations. Although Sergeant Mercer had seventeen years of experience, in June 2015, CSPU President Andrew Matthews filed a grievance over Sergeant Mercer’s appointment. Matthews’ grievance claimed that there had been no “selection process” to fill the position, despite the fact that none of Sergeant Mercer’s union-member predecessors had undergone any particular kind of selection process before they got the job.
Mathews also filed a second grievance, alleging Mercer had mismanaged a shooting incident involving an armed suspect barricaded in a hotel. State police officials never expressed dissatisfaction with how Mercer handled the situation.
In October 2015, the then-Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services transferred Mercer out of his Operations Sergeant position to an administrative post. That new position gave Mercer substantially fewer opportunities to work in the field or accrue overtime pay. Prior to this demotion, Mercer had received no warnings, reprimands, or other disciplinary actions regarding the incident referenced in Matthews’ grievance.
Mercer’s lawsuit seeks his reinstatement as Operations Sergeant in the Emergency Services Division and compensatory damages for the decrease in his overtime pay opportunities. In August 2018, the District Court denied motions to dismiss the case filed by CSPU and state officials, allowing the case to proceed.
Evidence Revealing Unfair Treatment of State Trooper Must Be Handed Over
The court orders compelling discovery state that records about Emergency Services Unit team members in similar “deadly force” situations to Mercer’s “are relevant for the purpose of determining a central issue in the case: whether Plaintiff was treated differently by his employer than others in similar situations.” The orders also say that information concerning whether or not a “selection process” was used to fill the Operations Sergeant position clearly “pertain to the issue of whether Plaintiff was treated differently with respect to his appointment as Operations Supervisor.”
“By compelling discovery in this case, the District Court brings Sergeant Mercer one step closer to defeating openly vindictive and unconstitutional behavior by CSPU union officials and their allies in state government. They wreaked havoc on Mercer’s career simply because he disagreed with the union’s politics,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’ve been proud to fight alongside Sergeant Mercer the past few years and will continue to do so until his rights and career are restored.”

24 May 2022
3 May 2022
10 Apr 2022

NYC Car Wash Workers Kick Out Unwanted RWDSU Union Officials

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.

16 May 2022
28 Feb 2022

Foundation on Labor Day 2021

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en English.