Foundation Fights to Enforce Janus Victory and Halt Big Labor’s Coercive Tactics
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation attorneys litigating more than 25 cases for public employees over Janus rights violations
CWA union officials, led by top boss Chris Shelton (pictured right with self declared socialist Senator Bernie Sanders), began seizing full union membership dues from David McCutcheon’s paychecks in violation of his Janus rights.
SANTA FE, N.M. – Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that forced union fees for public sector workers are unconstitutional, much work remains before civil servants are free from union bosses’ coercion.
In the landmark victory in Janus v. AFSCME in June 2018, briefed and argued by Foundation staff attorneys, the Supreme Court ruled that charging any government employee union fees as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. The Court also affirmed that unions may only collect fees when an employee gives clear and affirmative consent.
Already, Foundation staff attorneys are litigating more than 25 lawsuits from California to New Jersey to enforce the Janus decision, and new requests from public employees for assistance in enforcing their Janus rights continue to stream in.
Civil Servants Fight Union Bosses’ ‘Window Period’ Schemes
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, union officials seek to maintain their forced-fees coffers by stifling the rights of the workers they claim to represent. Foundation attorneys have filed several class action lawsuits challenging union officials’ “window period” schemes, arbitrary windows of time limiting when employees can exercise their First Amendment right to refrain
from subsidizing a union.
Two such cases (see page 1) have already settled in favor of the workers challenging union attempts to trap them in forced dues, but in the others union bosses still refuse to back down from their coercive schemes.
In New Mexico, David McCutcheon, an IT technician at New Mexico’s Department of Information Technology, was forced to pay union fees as a nonmember before Janus. After the Foundation’s victory, McCutcheon informed Communication Workers of America (CWA) union officials that under the First Amendment they could no longer force him to financially support the union.
Instead, union officials began charging him full union membership dues without his permission. To add insult to injury, union officials told McCutcheon that he could only stop the unauthorized deductions during a two-week “window period” in December.
McCutcheon sought free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, who filed a class action lawsuit in federal court. The class action complaint asks that the court strike down the unconstitutional “window period” scheme, and order the union to refund the membership dues and fees seized from McCutcheon and the likely hundreds of other public employees in New Mexico who have been similarly victimized during the past three years.
In two other cases, California teachers are fighting similar “window period” schemes with free aid from Foundation attorneys. Ventura County math professor Michael McCain is challenging the American Federation of Teachers union-created fifteen day “window period” policy in a class action lawsuit.
Union officials never informed McCain of his First Amendment right to refrain from supporting a union, making it impossible for him to have waived his rights as Janus requires. After Janus, McCain resigned union membership and made it clear in a letter that he does not consent to dues deductions. His lawsuit asks that the court strike down the “window period” scheme and stop forcing dues from him and potentially hundreds of other public employees.
Los Angeles kindergarten teacher Irene Seager filed another class action lawsuit, this one against United Teachers Los Angeles to challenge a 30-day “window period” scheme. Her lawsuit also challenges a California state law which allows the union to enforce the restrictive policy.
“Union officials have a long history of manipulating ‘window period’ schemes and other obstacles designed to block individuals from exercising their constitutional rights,” said Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite what union bosses say, First Amendment rights cannot be limited to mere days out of the year.”
Foundation attorneys are also litigating other class action lawsuits to reclaim years’ worth of union fees seized without consent before Janus. Together, the lawsuits seek refunds totaling more than $170 million.
SCOTUS Asked to Hear Homecare Providers’ Case Seeking Return of Seized Union Fees
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Providers fight to reclaim $32 million in union fees seized in violation of First Amendment
Susie Watts, a plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court Harris decision, is a home care provider for her daughter Libby. The case continues in Riffey, as providers fight for the return of unconstitutionally seized union fees.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Harris v. Quinn case that a scheme imposed by the state of Illinois, in which over 80,000 individual home care providers were unionized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and forced to pay union fees out of the state funding they receive, violated the providers’ First Amendment rights.
The ruling should have meant that SEIU union bosses were forced to return the unconstitutionally seized union fees. Instead, five years later the providers are once again at the steps of the Supreme Court.
SEIU Union Bosses Keep Illegally Seized Union Fees
After the 2014 ruling, Harris continued as Riffey v. Rauner. The case was remanded to the District Court to settle remaining issues, including whether or not the 80,000 providers would receive refunds of the money SEIU officials seized without consent.
In June 2016, the District Court denied a motion for class certification. The ruling allowed the SEIU to keep the over $32 million in unconstitutional fees confiscated from homecare providers compelled into union ranks, who had not consented to their money being taken for union fees. The Appeals Court upheld the ruling.
In 2018, Foundation staff attorneys successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the Appeals Court’s ruling. The High Court did so the day after it issued the landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision, ordering the Appeals Court to reconsider the case in light of the Janus ruling, which struck down public sector forced union fees as violating the First Amendment.
In Janus, which was argued by the same National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney who is lead counsel in the Riffey case, the Supreme Court clarified that any union fees taken without an individual’s informed consent violate the First Amendment. That standard supports the Riffey plaintiffs’ claim that all providers who had money seized without their consent are entitled to refunds.
SCOTUS Asked to Allow Providers to Reclaim Funds Seized in Violation of First Amendment
On December 6, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court affirmed its previous ruling that no class can be certified from the over 80,000 providers whose money was seized in violation of their First Amendment rights. The panel based its decision on the ground that each individual homecare provider would have to prove that he or she objected to the taking of the fees when the seizures occurred.
After the Appeals Court denied Foundation staff attorneys’ request to rehear the case with all judges, Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking it to take the case.
Foundation staff attorneys point out that the Janus precedent does not require a worker to prove his or her subjective opposition to forced union fees. Rather, Janus held that the First Amendment is violated if union dues or fees are seized without the worker’s clear affirmative consent.
“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that SEIU had illegally confiscated union dues from thousands of Illinois homecare providers, but the ruling challenged by this petition denies those same caregivers the opportunity to reclaim the money that never should have been taken from them by SEIU in the first place,” said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If SEIU’s bosses are not required to return the money they seized in violation of homecare providers’ constitutional rights, it will only encourage similar behavior from union officials eager to trample the First Amendment to enrich themselves with the money intended for the care of individuals who need it.”
Ohio Worker Files Amicus Brief in Federal Lawsuit Seeking Return of Ohio Teachers’ Forced Union Fees
Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus brief with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Ohio Department of Taxation employee Nathaniel Ogle. A copy of the brief can be found here.
The case seeks the refund of forced fees taken from Ohio teachers in violation of their First Amendment rights, as recognized in the Janus v. AFSCME US Supreme Court case, argued by Foundation staff attorney William Messenger. Messenger represents Ogle in a similar case in which Ogle is seeking the refund of potentially millions of dollars of forced fees taken from him and other state employees by AFSCME Local 11 union officials.
For more on Ogle’s case, read this article from a recent issue of the Foundation’s bi-monthly newsletter.
Illinois Care Providers File Final Brief Asking Supreme Court to Take Case Seeking Return of Illegally-Seized Forced Union Fees
Today National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed the final brief in Riffey v. Pritzker before the US Supreme Court conferences to decide whether or not to hear the case. The case is a continuation of the 2014 Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn case, and now seeks the refunds of seized union dues for over 80,000 home caregivers in Illinois.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix offered the following comments on the filing of the Petitioner’s Reply Brief today:
“Illinois homecare providers should no longer be forced to jump through legal hoops to reclaim their money that should never have been taken from them in the first place. The Supreme Court already decided in Harris v. Quinn that forcing homecare providers to pay fees to an unwanted union is unconstitutional in principle, and subsequently in Janus the court clarified that any dues taken without consent is a First Amendment violation. Riffey’s petition simply asks the High Court to apply the principles it laid out in Harris and Janus to the tens of thousands of Illinois providers so they can reclaim the over $32 million dollars seized from them.»
Background
In February, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Illinois homecare providers filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case in which providers seek the return of more than $32 million in union fees seized by SEIU officials in a scheme the High Court already declared unconstitutional.
The case, Riffey v. Pritzker, is a continuation of the 2014 Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn case. In Harris, the Court ruled that a scheme imposed by the State of Illinois, in which more than 80,000 individual homecare providers were forced to pay union fees out of the state funding they receive, violated the providers’ First Amendment rights.
In 2014, the case was re-designated Riffey v. Rauner (now Riffey v. Pritzker) and remanded to the District Court to settle remaining issues, including whether or not tens of thousands of providers who had not joined the union would receive refunds of the money taken from them unlawfully by the SEIU.
In June 2016, the District Court denied a motion for class certification. The ruling allowed the SEIU to keep more than $32 million in unconstitutional fees confiscated from union nonmembers who had not consented to their money being taken for union fees. Foundation staff attorneys appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which also denied class certification.
In 2018, Foundation staff attorneys successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Appeals Court’s ruling. The High Court did so the day after it issued the landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision, ordering the Appeals Court to reconsider the case in light of the Janus ruling, which struck down public sector forced union fees as violating the First Amendment.
In Janus, which was argued by the same National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney who is lead counsel in Riffey, the Supreme Court clarified that any union fees taken without an individual’s prior informed consent violate the First Amendment. That standard supports the Riffey plaintiffs’ claim that all providers who had money seized without their consent are entitled to refunds.
However, on December 6 a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court affirmed its previous ruling that no class can be certified for the more than 80,000 providers whose money was seized in violation of their First Amendment rights. The majority opinion, signed by two of the judges, denied class on the grounds that each individual homecare provider would have to prove that he or she objected to the taking of the fees when the seizures occurred.
In their petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear their case, the providers argue that Janus requires that the lower court’s class certification order be reversed. Foundation staff attorneys point out that the Janus precedent does not require a worker to prove his or her subjective opposition to forced union fees but held that the First Amendment is violated anytime union dues or fees are seized without clear affirmative consent.
Foundation attorneys argue that the case is of exceptional importance not only because it concerns the return of more than $32 million seized from some 80,000 homecare providers in violation of their First Amendment rights, but also because the lower courts’ ruling sets a precedent that could result in the denial of relief for millions of public employee victims of forced unionism.
All the briefs in the case can be viewed on the US Supreme Court’s docket here.
Employee’s Federal Lawsuit Against Steelworkers Alleges “Window Period” Policy Violates Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law
Lawsuit seeks to enforce Right to Work law provision that Wisconsin Attorney General Kaul refused to defend at the US Supreme Court last month
Burlington, Wisc. (June 4, 2019) – An employee at Packaging Corporation of America’s (PCA) Burlington, WI facility has just filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against United Steelworkers Local 231 for enforcing a dues collection policy in violation of both federal labor law and a provision of Wisconsin’s Right to Work law.
According to Martin Carter’s lawsuit, which was filed with free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, United Steelworkers (USW) union agents subjected him to a dues checkoff authorization policy that violates federal law by being irrevocable for longer than one year, and violates Wisconsin’s Right to Work law by not allowing employees to stop dues deductions at any time with a 30-day notice.
According to the complaint, Carter believed upon being hired that signing off on the dues checkoff authorization was a condition of employment. When he tried to revoke that authorization later and exercise his rights under Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, which makes union dues and membership voluntary, union agents stonewalled his attempts deliver his revocation letter.
Carter’s lawsuit follows controversy surrounding Wisconsin’s new Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul. Last month Kaul withdrew the state’s petition asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that part of Wisconsin’s Right to Work law, which gives private sector employees the right to revoke their dues “checkoff” with 30 days’ notice, was preempted by federal labor law. Rather than defend Wisconsin’s law, Kaul sided with union officials whom reports show gave his campaign for attorney general more than $400,000 in direct contributions, with union affiliates being his seven largest contributors.
Kaul’s capitulation left standing a divided 2-1 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that federal law preempts states like Wisconsin from protecting workers seeking to stop dues payments. Carter’s lawsuit brings this issue back to federal court, potentially giving the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to decide an issue that it was blocked from considering when Kaul reneged on his campaign pledge to defend Wisconsin laws, even those passed under the Walker administration.
“Martin Carter’s case shows there are real worker victims of Attorney General Kaul’s dereliction of his duty to defend all of Wisconsin’s laws,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As this case shows, union bosses play fast and loose with workers’ rights in their attempt to trap them into forced dues payments against their will, which is precisely why Wisconsin legislators enacted the Right to Work law’s provision giving workers the option of cutting off dues payments within 30 days of asking to do so.”
Milwaukee Workers Challenge NLRB “Merger Doctrine” that Blocks Workers from Holding Vote to Remove Unwanted Union
After being unionized through coercive “card check,” workers are blocked from holding secret ballot vote by biased NLRB rules
Milwaukee, Wisc. (June 3, 2019) – A clerical employee at trucking company USF Holland’s Milwaukee, WI facility has just asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to overturn an NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal of her petition to hold a vote to decertify the Teamsters Local 200 union as the monopoly bargaining agent at her workplace.
Diane Damask’s petition, filed with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges the so-called “merger doctrine,” which allows union officials to “merge” employees in a small bargaining unit into a much larger one to block them from voting to decertify the union. Damask’s request for review notes that the Teamsters performed such a scheme at her small clerical office in an agreement with USF Holland – without fully explaining the ramifications to the employees.
According to the request for review, Region 18’s dismissal of her petition wrongly stifles her rights because it “makes it effectively impossible for employees in such mega-units to exercise their…rights to decertify a union through a secret ballot election” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As the petition points out, this is not the first time the workers’ statutory rights to hold a decertification election to remove a union they oppose has been stifled by internal NLRB rules not mandated by the NLRA.
The Teamsters originally had scheduled an NLRB-supervised unionization election in January 2018, but then cancelled the vote after cutting a backroom deal with USF Holland to bypass the protections of a secret ballot vote, and instead unionize the workers through the coercive “card check” process. Upset by the situation, Damask and her colleagues quickly circulated a petition to trigger a secret ballot decertification vote only to be told by the NLRB that – under the controversial “voluntary recognition” bar adopted by the Obama NLRB – the workers would have to wait up to a full year before they could file a petition.
Having waited a full year for the NLRB-created “bar” after a card check to expire, now the workers – a majority of whom signed the decertification petition – find themselves blocked again from holding a secret ballot vote by a merger agreement over which they had no real say. In fact, it was not until after Damask had her decertification petition rejected that she learned that, according the merger agreement, she and her eight coworkers at their facility were now deemed part of a nationwide “mega-unit” of approximately 24,000 employees working for multiple employers.
Because triggering a decertification vote requires the signatures of thirty percent of workers in the bargaining unit, under the “merger” such a petition is virtually impossible as she would need to collect 7,000 signatures from workers across the country she has no way of even locating.
Damask’s petition argues that the Teamsters and USF Holland improperly “‘waived’ the Milwaukee clerical employees’ rights under the [NLRA] to decertify an unwanted union” and that “if the…clerical employees constituted a separate appropriate unit for purposes of selecting the Teamsters to represent them…the Board should still consider them a(n)…appropriate unit for purposes of removing the union.”
“This case shows how union bosses, aided by biased NLRB-concocted rules, can trap workers in union ranks for years even when a majority of the workers want out,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “It’s time for the NLRB to stop dragging its feet and reform its arbitrary rules, including the so-called ‘merger doctrine,’ that are being used to eviscerate workers’ statutory right under the National Labor Relations Act to hold a vote to remove a union opposed by a majority of employees.”
Transportation Worker Asks Federal Labor Board to Review “Settlement Bar” Doctrine that Blocks Votes to Remove Union
Employees’ right under National Labor Relations Act to hold decertification vote is blocked by settlement between union and company
Chicago, IL (June 3, 2019) – An employee at Langer Transport Corporation’s Joliet, IL, facility has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to review a ruling by NLRB Region 13 that blocks workers at the company from holding a vote to remove the Teamsters from their workplace.
Angelika Van Meeteren’s petition comes after the Teamsters union officials and Langer last October settled earlier unfair labor practice charges filed by the union against Langer. The agreement included a “settlement bar” clause immunizing the union from any decertification attempts for an entire year.
Van Meeteren and her coworkers who want the decertification vote were not parties to the agreement. Although not authorized by the National Labor Relations Act, prior NLRB actions created the so-called “settlement bar” doctrine, which denies workers their right to hold a vote to remove a union for a period of time after the settlement of charges filed against the employer. The bar is often imposed even when the settlement does not contain any admission that the employer violated the law.
Van Meeteren’s petition, which was filed with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues that settlement decertification bars “have no basis in the [National Labor Relations] Act” and “offend basic principles of justice” because they prevent employees from exercising their right to hold a decertification vote simply because a company and a union came to an agreement forbidding it — without any input from the employees. That right is guarded by Section 7 of the NLRA, which explicitly protects “the right to refrain from” union representation.
Foundation staff attorneys have fought “settlement bars” on a number of fronts, most recently in a federal lawsuit filed for Marcia Williams and Karen Wunz, two Pennsylvania school bus drivers whose decertification petition was blocked by the NLRB after their employer Krise Transportation came to a settlement with Teamsters Local 397. That lawsuit was eventually deemed moot, because the bar expired while the litigation was proceeding, thus allowing the workers to hold a vote. The Foundation also sent a letter to the NLRB last December requesting that future rulemaking by the Board address “settlement bars” and their inherent conflicts with the NLRA.
“The NLRB-concocted ‘settlement bar’ doctrine is an assault on fundamental fairness by restricting workers’ legal right to remove an unpopular union solely because of unproven allegations made against their employer by union officials,” commented National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “The Act is supposed to protect the right of workers to join or reject a union. Punishing Angelika Van Meeteren and her coworkers by blocking their petition to vote out a union they oppose, despite the fact no one even alleges the workers broke any law, is totally contrary to that fundamental purpose.”
Foundation Victory: Workers Cannot Be Forced to Fund Union Lobbying
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
NLRB also rules that union bosses must provide independent verification of forced fees audit
Nurse Jeanette Geary challenged Big Labor’s coercive tactics after discovering that union bosses were forcing her to pay for union lobbying activities.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nine years after filing her case over forced union fees, former Rhode Island nurse Jeanette Geary finally claimed victory over union bosses’ illegal scheme.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a sweeping decision in Geary’s case, providing new protections for workers and accountability over forced fees calculations.
Geary, then a nurse at Kent Hospital in Warwick, Rhode Island, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) union in 2009 with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys.
She filed the charges after UNAP officials failed to provide an independent auditor’s verification that its breakdown of expenditures had been audited. She also challenged the union’s forcing her and other employees to pay for union lobbying activities in violation of the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision.
“For someone to tell me that they’re going to take my money that I have earned working very hard, and they’re going to use it for their political purposes, you know — that makes me very, very angry,” Geary said.
When Geary discovered what was happening with the union fees she was forced to pay, it was about more than money. “I don’t like to be manipulated because I am a nurse. Just because I nurse and you turn your light on and I’ll be there and I’ll do anything that you need to promote your well-being, that doesn’t mean you can step on me. It was a deep-down, personal, gut reaction to [the union officials] who decided not only would they label me as ignorant and stupid and laugh about me in their office, but they would also take my money.”
The Obama NLRB had issued a bad decision in Geary’s case in 2012, but the ruling was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s 2014 holding in NLRB v. Noel Canning. The Supreme Court agreed with the Foundation’s amicus brief that the Board lacked a valid quorum because of three unconstitutional “recess appointments” then President Obama made.
Five years later, Geary’s case was the only remaining case invalidated by Noel Canning that was still pending without a decision by the NLRB.
In January 2019, Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking a court order that the NLRB promptly decide Geary’s case. The Appeals Court then ordered the NLRB to respond to the mandamus petition by March 4, which caused the NLRB to issue its decision on March 1, just ahead of the deadline.
The NLRB’s 3-1 decision held that union officials violate workers’ rights by forcing non-members to fund union lobbying activities. It also ruled that union officials must provide independent verification that the union expenses they charge to non-members have been audited.
“Jeanette Geary bravely fought against Big Labor’s workplace coercion for years, resisting a blatant refusal to respect her rights and those of the workers union officials claim to represent,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Although this is an overdue victory for Jeanette Geary, ultimately these types of forced union abuses will never be eliminated until Big Labor’s power to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment is completely eliminated.”
Union Bosses in New York and Oregon Hit with Federal Charges for Illegal Forced Union Dues
Workers file NLRB charges against UFCW union for failing to follow Supreme Court precedent requiring disclosures about dues demands
Washington, D.C. (May 30, 2019) – Two separate unfair labor practice charges just filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against two locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) suggest widespread violations of workers’ legal rights by UFCW union officials.
The charges, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, state union officials failed to provide legally required breakdowns of how forced union fees were calculated as mandated by the 1988 CWA v. Beck Supreme Court case. Under the National Labor Relations Act and the National Right to Work Foundation-won Beck case, union officials must provide an audited financial breakdown to justify the amount of the union fees that they force nonmember workers to pay as a condition of employment.
Salem, Oregon Safeway employee Harvey Henry filed his NLRB charge against UFCW Local 555. In response to an April 18 letter sent by Henry objecting to full union dues and resigning his membership in the union, UFCW officials acknowledged his letter but simply quoted again what “he owes rather than providing him with the requisite financial ‘breakdown.’”
Similarly, Carolee Buckley, who works at the Plattdeutsche Home Society retirement home in Franklin Square, NY, sent a letter last October to UFCW Local 2013 union officials resigning her union membership and objecting to all dues beyond what union officials can legally require her to pay. Her charge states that, in the nearly seven months since that time, UFCW officials have not given her the required breakdown of how the fees they are demanding she pay are calculated.
The charges are not the only cases currently pending against the UFCW for this type of violation. Last May, a 16-year-old Safeway clerk from Danville, CA filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against UFCW Local 5 for failing to provide him with a breakdown of compulsory fees following his resignation, also with Foundation aid. In April, the NLRB Regional Director issued a complaint against UFCW Local 5 to prosecute the union for violating the clerk’s rights, with a trial set to begin soon.
All three employees work in states – Oregon, New York and California – that lack Right to Work laws, which make union membership and financial support completely voluntary. Despite the lack of Right to Work protections for workers, even in forced dues states union officials must provide certain disclosures to workers to justify the amount of the forced union fees, but the unfair labor practice charges say UFCW union officials are not complying with that requirement.
“As these three cases demonstrate, UFCW union bosses are willing to violate the rights of the very workers they claim to represent, just to fill their coffers with more forced union dues,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These cases show why workers nationwide need the protection of Right to Work laws, which make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. As long as union officials can force workers to pay even a portion of full union dues as a condition of employment, greedy Big Labor bosses will continue to cook the books and keep workers in the dark about the restrictions on their privileges to force nonmembers to fund their agenda.”
Supreme Court Asked to Hear Challenge to Washington State Scheme Forcing Childcare Providers Under SEIU Union Representation
High Court should apply First Amendment scrutiny and strike down law forcing childcare business owners to associate with SEIU
Washington, D.C. (May 24, 2019) – A Washington State childcare provider is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Miller v. Inslee, a case which challenges the state’s requirement that businesses which receive state funds for providing childcare to low-income families accept the monopoly representation of the Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU). The Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys for plaintiff Katherine Miller, who is challenging the scheme as a violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and association.
Miller, who runs a childcare business from her home, is deemed a “public employee” by the State of Washington solely because part of her business revenue includes subsidies the state provides to low-income families to be used on childcare. As a result, Washington granted SEIU union officials the power to force her under their union monopoly bargaining scheme and dictate the terms of how she runs her home-based business.
The petition asks the court to hold government-mandated forced “representation” to the same First Amendment standard that led the Supreme Court to find in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision that forced union fees violate the First Amendment. In that ruling, the Supreme Court also held that government-granted union monopoly bargaining power over public employees is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.”
In this case, Miller maintains that Washington’s policy breaches the First Amendment by forcing her to associate with union officials whose representation she doesn’t want and to which she didn’t consent. Miller’s argument also cites the High Court’s holding in the 2014 Harris v. Quinn case, which invalidated forced union fees for similar home-based care providers on the grounds that they are not full-fledged “public employees.” The petition argues that finding, in combination with the Supreme Court’s observation in Janus regarding forced association in “other contexts,” warrants Supreme Court review.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys successfully argued and briefed both the Janus and Harris cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. In both cases the Supreme Court applied a heightened level of “exacting” First Amendment scrutiny to the government-imposed forced dues, which is what Miller asks the Court to apply in her case challenging forced association with a union.
“Based on misreadings of not only Janus but also earlier Supreme Court precedent, courts across the country have looked the other way as union bosses and their allies in government have come up with increasingly outrageous schemes to force individuals under union monopolies against their will,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “If Katherine Miller, who runs a small business out of her own home, can be forced to associate with a union simply because she cares for children whose care is partially subsidized by the government, then there is no legal limit to who can be forced to accept a government-appointed ‘representative’ to speak to and lobby the government for them.”
