Dearborn, MI (August 20, 2014) – A Dearborn-area Ford Motor Company worker has filed federal charges against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and the company for violating his rights.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Todd Lemire, a 16-year Dearborn Tool & Die plant worker, filed the charges last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

On April 7, 2014, Lemire sent a letter to Ford Motor and UAW union officials exercising his statutory rights to resign his union membership and refrain from full union dues. Under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, nonmember workers can refrain from paying for union boss politics and members-only events. The current contract was agreed to before Michigan’s Right to Work law came into effect, which is why Lemire cannot yet cut off all union dues and fees.

Even though UAW union officials acknowledged Lemire’s request, Ford continued to confiscate full union dues from Lemire’s paychecks. Lemire sent a second letter, this time informing UAW union officials that full dues were still being taken from his paychecks. UAW union officials returned the illegally-taken union dues.

Despite Lemire’s repeated attempts to refrain from full dues-paying union membership, Ford Motor continues to confiscate, and UAW union officials continue to accept, full union dues from Lemire’s paychecks.

«No worker should be forced to jump over hurdles to exercise their right to refrain from union affiliation,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This case underscores just how important Michigan’s Right to Work law making union dues payments completely voluntary is for workers.»

Federal Court Hears Challenge to Minnesota Homecare Providers’ Unionization

SEIU seeks to push home-based personal care providers into union ranks

Minneapolis, MN (August 19, 2014) – Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will consider a motion brought by a group of home-based personal care providers to immediately halt the unionization of the state’s homecare providers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Teri Bierman and eight other providers from around the state filed a federal lawsuit last month against Governor Mark Dayton and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The suit challenges a law that authorizes the forcible unionization of the state’s providers on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

Today, the court will consider the homecare providers’ motion for a temporary injunction immediately halting implementation of the law intended to designate SEIU officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state. The SEIU seeks to unionize the providers via a mail-in vote that started on August 1.

Click here to read the full release.

Minneapolis, MN (August 19, 2014) – Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will consider a motion brought by a group of home-based personal care providers to immediately halt the unionization of the state’s homecare providers.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Teri Bierman and eight other providers from around the state filed a federal lawsuit last month against Governor Mark Dayton and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The suit challenges a law that authorizes the forcible unionization of the state’s providers on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

Today, the court will consider the homecare providers’ motion for a temporary injunction immediately halting implementation of the law intended to designate SEIU officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state. The SEIU seeks to unionize the providers via a mail-in vote that started on August 1.

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn, a Foundation case challenging whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The Court held that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling frees home-based childcare and personal care providers from forced union dues and fees in at least 13 other states.

«In effect Governor Dayton is picking the SEIU as the lobbyists for Minnesota’s personal care providers as payback for the union bosses who have been some of his most generous political supporters,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «The court should immediately halt this violation of homecare providers’ fundamental right of free association.»

The hearing will be held in Courtroom 15E at the Minneapolis Federal Courthouse at 9:30 a.m.

Houston, TX (August 12, 2014) – Three years after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) eliminated workers’ right to challenge union card check recognition with a secret ballot vote, the very workers involved in that case have petitioned for an election to remove the unwanted union from their workplace.

In 2007, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys secured a new NLRB precedent in Dana Corp. which held that workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45-day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling was intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with card checks, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as «votes» toward unionization.

In 2011, the Obama NLRB overturned the Dana precedent in Lamons Gasket. In that case, the NLRB denied the gasket and bolt manufacturing workers, and thousands of workers nationwide since, the right to challenge union card check recognition with a secret ballot vote. As a result, workers currently must wait up to three years after the date of the first monopoly bargaining agreement between their employer and union officials before they can file a petition for a secret ballot vote.

Now, almost three years to the date since the NLRB overturned Dana, Lamons Gasket workers, with the help of Foundation attorneys, filed for a secret ballot election to remove the United Steelworker union bosses who obtained control over their workplace through a coercive card check campaign. The election is now scheduled for August 20, 2014.

«The Obama NLRB has denied justice for these Lamons Gasket workers for three years,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Now that these workers finally have the overdue opportunity to determine their own union representation, this case proves once again that the Obama Labor Board’s contorted ruling to kill the Dana Corp. precedent is a complete farce designed to further empower union operatives to steamroll workers into union ranks.»

«President Obama and his hand-picked bureaucrats, operating under the guise of upholding federal labor law that purports to protect worker rights, are striving to make it next to impossible for independent-minded workers to stand up for their rights or remove an unwanted union hierarchy,» added Mix.

Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant Files Federal Suit Challenging Transport Union Discrimination

Union officials retaliate against flight attendant for resigning union membership

Dallas, TX (August 8, 2014) – An Oakland, California-based Southwest Airline (NYSE: LUV) flight attendant has filed a federal lawsuit against a local union for discriminating against him for resigning his union membership.

With free legal assistance from staff attorneys provided by the National Right to Work Foundation, Kent Hand, a flight attendant for 12 years, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In October 2013, Hand resigned his membership in the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556.

Shortly thereafter, Hand received a phone call from a TWU Local 556 union official informing him that he was being removed from the Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) team because he resigned his union membership.

Click here to read the full release.

Dallas, TX (August 8, 2014) – An Oakland, California-based Southwest Airline (NYSE: LUV) flight attendant has filed a federal lawsuit against a local union for discriminating against him for resigning his union membership.

With free legal assistance from staff attorneys provided by the National Right to Work Foundation, Kent Hand, a flight attendant for 12 years, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In October 2013, Hand resigned his membership in the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556.

Shortly thereafter, Hand received a phone call from a TWU Local 556 union official informing him that he was being removed from the Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) team because he resigned his union membership.

The CISM team is a joint employer-union funded, peer-to-peer counselling group for flight attendants who wish to speak confidentially to other flight attendants regarding work-related difficulties. CISM team members are paid during annual training and on-call days, receive highly specialized training, and have the opportunity to meet Southwest senior executives in exchange for volunteering in the program.

The suit alleges TWU Local 556 union officials acted in bad faith and violated their duty of fair representation by punishing Hand for resigning his union membership.

«TWU Local 556 union officials retaliated against Mr. Hand for resigning his union membership,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «No worker should be punished for exercising their statutory or constitutional right to refrain from union membership.»

National Right to Work Supreme Court Victory Forces SEIU to Abandon Forced Dues Demands in Illinois, Minnesota, & Massachusetts

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys build on Harris precedent to aid home-based personal care providers forced into union ranks

Washington, DC (August 5, 2014) – In the wake of a National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court victory in June, government union bosses from across the country are now abandoning their forced dues demands on home-based personal care and childcare providers.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a case concerning whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit litigated by Foundation staff attorneys and filed by eight Illinois care providers after Illinois Governors signed executive orders rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union representation.

The Court struck down the scheme, ruling that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling renders unconstitutional similar homecare unionization schemes in effect in at least 14 other states.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (August 5, 2014) – In the wake of a National Right to Work Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court victory in June, government union bosses from across the country are now abandoning their forced dues demands on home-based personal care and childcare providers.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a case concerning whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will. The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit litigated by Foundation staff attorneys and filed by eight Illinois care providers after Illinois Governors signed executive orders rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union representation.

The Court struck down the scheme, ruling that individuals who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court’s ruling renders unconstitutional similar homecare unionization schemes in effect in at least 14 other states.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials last week notified Illinois home-based childcare providers that they will not demand $10 million in annual forced dues payments from the providers.

In Minnesota, after several providers represented by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a federal lawsuit last week, SEIU bosses also said that they will not force personal care providers who care for family members to pay forced dues.

Then, late Friday, SEIU officials notified Massachusetts home childcare providers that they will no longer be forced to pay union fees. Massachusetts providers represented by Foundation staff attorneys had filed a federal suit challenging the SEIU unionization scheme in April.

«Thanks to a National Right to Work Foundation-won victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, SEIU bosses across the country are being forced to back down from their forced union dues demands,» stated Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «SEIU officials are no longer empowered to siphon off money that is designated for low-income and special needs children and adults who receive care at home.»

While Harris is already freeing tens of thousands of homecare providers from forced dues ranks, Foundation attorneys continue the legal battle to end such forced dues schemes and ensure the return of illegally-seized forced dues. In addition, they have brought suits for providers to stop state schemes imposing union officials as monopoly representatives of homecare providers who don’t want and never asked for union so-called «representation.»

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit issued a ruling in the Minnesota childcare provider’s lawsuit challenging a state law designed to forcibly unionize them. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in the wake of today’s ruling:

«We disagree with the court’s limited ruling holding that the childcare providers’ lawsuit is not ripe until a unionization election is requested. However, we are encouraged that the court’s reasoning further legitimizes the personal homecare providers’ lawsuit filed earlier this week.

«The court’s ruling today means that the homecare providers’ suit is indeed ripe for review because those providers are under imminent threat of unionization, with the unionization election starting tomorrow.

«No homecare personal or childcare provider should be forced to associate with a state’s hand-picked political representative. Jennifer Parrish and other Minnesota childcare providers intend to refile their lawsuit if and when AFSCME union officials push to force childcare providers into union ranks.»

Both groups of providers are receiving free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.