Washington, DC (January 29, 2014) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, led by former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member John Raudabaugh, have requested an official inquiry into the NLRB’s conduct in adjudicating several Chattanooga Volkswagen America workers’ charges against VW and the United Auto Worker (UAW) union during the on-going, highly-contentious UAW organizing campaign.

Foundation staff attorneys have asked the NLRB’s Inspector General to investigate the agency’s conduct during its processing of the workers’ unfair labor practice charges that the NLRB Division of Advice instructed the NLRB Regional Director in Atlanta to dismiss.

Several VW workers filed charges alleging improprieties in the UAW union hierarchy’s card check process, including getting workers to sign union authorization cards by coercion and misrepresentation and using cards signed too long ago to be legally valid. Some of those workers also filed a federal charge against the company alleging that statements by German VW officials are illegally coercing their fellow workers to accept UAW monopoly bargaining power over their workplace.

On January 23, NLRB staff in Washington, DC, released the Division of Advice’s two «Advice Memorandums» to members of the media in Chattanooga and Knoxville but not to the workers’ Foundation staff attorneys. Foundation public relations staff later received the NLRB memos from a reporter in Chattanooga. The Board staff released these Advice Memorandums to the press even though such memos are rarely, if ever, released to anyone in open cases.

An email the NLRB Atlanta Region accidentally forwarded to Foundation attorneys suggests that VW’s lawyers also received inquiries regarding the memos’ content from a press contact in Knoxville before those lawyers received the memos. Furthermore, the email shows that the Regional Director in Atlanta questioned the propriety of the Advice Memorandums’ release to the media, contrary to longstanding NLRB practice.

The NLRB Regional Director’s message then states, «I hope the RTW folks do not pick apart the dismissal letters because they may not exactly track the advice wording.» Foundation attorneys are concerned that the NLRB’s hurried public release of memos favorable to VW and the UAW calls into question the agency’s impartiality in the workers’ cases.

Foundation attorneys also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NLRB seeking full disclosure regarding the agency’s handling of the case and its contacts with UAW agents.

«The NLRB’s actions undermined Foundation attorneys’ ability to advise their clients before the NLRB’s dismissal of their cases became publicly known,» said Ray LaJeunesse, Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. «The NLRB’s conduct further cements the perception that one set of rules applies to benefit union bosses and another set of rules applies against workers who wish to remain union free.»

Washington, DC (January 21, 2013) – Tuesday morning, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys will argue a case before the United States Supreme Court that will decide whether Illinois homecare providers can be forced into union ranks against their will.

The case, Harris v. Quinn, is a class-action lawsuit filed by Pam Harris and seven other Illinois care providers after Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 individuals who offer in-home care to disabled persons as «public employees,» thus rendering them vulnerable to unwanted union organizing. However, the scheme only designates providers as public employees for the purposes of unionization, leaving the homecare recipients as the employers for all other aspects of the providers’ work.

As a result of Quinn’s order, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) organizers have been seeking to acquire monopoly bargaining control over this newly-created class of public employees.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former Governor Blagojevich, which designated over 20,000 personal care providers as state workers solely for the purpose of forcing them into union ranks. Quinn then expanded Blagojevich’s directive to cover an additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the original order.

Several legal observers and pundits have referred to Harris as a «sleeper» case. At least 18 states have imposed schemes to unionize home-based personal care and childcare workers. This case could have significant ramifications of how the government determines what workers, who indirectly receive state subsidies based on their clientele, qualify as state employees. Foundation attorneys will argue that such schemes violate the providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

«This scheme, which forces small business owners and even parents and grandparents taking care of children into union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear. The government does not have the power to force citizens to accept its handpicked political representation to lobby itself.

«Forcing homecare providers into union ranks just for the sake of lobbying is not only unconstitutional, but immoral. We hope the Court will agree and protect the rights of Pam Harris and tens of thousands of other care providers by striking down this constitutionally-dubious scheme.»

Indiana Workers File Brief in Support of State’s Right to Work Law

Hoosier citizens contest spurious union legal challenge

Crown Point, IN (January 14, 2014) – Two Indiana citizens have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending in state court.

The two workers, Douglas Richards and David Brubaker, filed the brief with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The brief was filed together with the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

The case is a lawsuit filed by the United Steelworker (USW) union that makes a number of dubious claims about Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law, including the argument that unions have a right to force workers to pay for their unwanted services.

Click here to read the full release.

Crown Point, IN (January 14, 2014) – Two Indiana citizens have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending in state court.

The two workers, Douglas Richards and David Brubaker, filed the brief with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. The brief was filed together with the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

The case is a lawsuit filed by the United Steelworker (USW) union that makes a number of dubious claims about Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law, including the argument that unions have a right to force workers to pay for their unwanted services.

Both Richards and Brubaker are or were employed in workplaces where a forced dues contract was in place between their employers and the USW union before the Right to Work law was enacted. Consequently, both workers have been forced to pay USW union dues and fees just to keep their jobs, despite the fact neither belonged to the union nor sought the union’s so-called «representation.»

In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys point out that state Right to Work laws are protected under federal labor law. The workers also argue in their brief that the state’s Right to Work law protects workers’ human and civil rights to earn a living without being forced to join or financially support a private organization. The brief also lays out how every contested state Right to Work law has been upheld as constitutional.

Last month, two additional workers filed a similar brief rebutting a union-backed legal challenge brought by International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 officials. That suit is pending at the Indiana Supreme Court.

«Hoosier citizens want to make their voices heard against a frivolous union legal challenge to Indiana’s Right to Work law,» said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. «Workers shouldn’t be forced to join or pay tribute to a union just to keep a job, which is why we applaud these workers for standing up for their rights under Indiana’s Right to Work law.»

Suffolk County, NY (January 14, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local teacher has reached a settlement with two unions after union officials kept in the union treasury dues she paid that were supposed to have gone to charity.

Maureen Stavrakoglou is employed by the Brentwood School District, which requires all teachers to pay dues to the Brentwood Teachers Association (BTA) union and its state affiliate, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) union, as a condition of employment. However, teachers with sincere religious objections to supporting a union can request to have their union dues redirected to a mutually agreed-upon charity.

In 2005, BTA and NYSUT union officials came to an agreement with Stavrakoglou that redirected all of her NYSUT dues to charity. After the agreement was finalized, Stavrakoglou asked union officials to redirect her dues for 2006-2007 to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. The BTA’s president subsequently assured Stavrakoglou that her dues would be sent to the designated charities.

From 2006 to 2013, Stavrakoglou designated a new charity each year as the recipient of her union dues. However, at least two of the charities she chose – The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep Foundation – never received a donation from the union under Stavrakoglou’s name. A third charity, The NYC Firefighters’ Burn Center Foundation, only received Stavrakoglou’s donation after she called union officials to inquire about the status of her dues. After discovering that union officials were not following through on their promises, Stavrakoglou filed suit in Suffolk County Supreme Court in 2011.

Stavrakoglou’s settlement requires the unions to make up for every missed donation from 2006 to 2013, plus interest, to the charities she designated. The NYSUT union is also required to assign a staff attorney to oversee the charitable payment process and ensure Stavrakoglou’s future donations are made in a timely fashion.

“After assuring Maureen Stavrakoglou that they would respect her religious objections and redirect her dues to charity, teacher union bosses brazenly kept the money for themselves,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“We’re happy to report that Mrs. Stavrakoglou’s donations will finally be honored,” continued Semmens. “However, this type of abuse will continue as long as unions are permitted to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. That’s why New York needs a Right to Work law, which would make the payment of union dues strictly voluntary.”

Suffolk County, NY (January 14, 2014) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local teacher has reached a settlement with two unions after union officials kept in the union treasury dues she paid that were supposed to have gone to charity.

Maureen Stavrakoglou is employed by the Brentwood School District, which requires all teachers to pay dues to the Brentwood Teachers Association (BTA) union and its state affiliate, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) union, as a condition of employment. However, teachers with sincere religious objections to supporting a union can request to have their union dues redirected to a mutually agreed-upon charity.

In 2005, BTA and NYSUT union officials came to an agreement with Stavrakoglou that redirected all of her NYSUT dues to charity. After the agreement was finalized, Stavrakoglou asked union officials to redirect her dues for 2006-2007 to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. The BTA’s president subsequently assured Stavrakoglou that her dues would be sent to the designated charities.

From 2006 to 2013, Stavrakoglou designated a new charity each year as the recipient of her union dues. However, at least two of the charities she chose – The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep Foundation – never received a donation from the union under Stavrakoglou’s name. A third charity, The NYC Firefighters’ Burn Center Foundation, only received Stavrakoglou’s donation after she called union officials to inquire about the status of her dues. After discovering that union officials were not following through on their promises, Stavrakoglou filed suit in Suffolk County Supreme Court in 2011.

Stavrakoglou’s settlement requires the unions to make up for every missed donation from 2006 to 2013, plus interest, to the charities she designated. The NYSUT union is also required to assign a staff attorney to oversee the charitable payment process and ensure Stavrakoglou’s future donations are made in a timely fashion.

“After assuring Maureen Stavrakoglou that they would respect her religious objections and redirect her dues to charity, teacher union bosses brazenly kept the money for themselves,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“We’re happy to report that Mrs. Stavrakoglou’s donations will finally be honored,” continued Semmens. “However, this type of abuse will continue as long as unions are permitted to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. That’s why New York needs a Right to Work law, which would make the payment of union dues strictly voluntary.”

National Right to Work Foundation’s Notice Posting Court Victory Stands

Two federal appeals courts strike down unprecedented rule aimed at expanding Big Labor’s forced dues ranks

Washington, DC (January 3, 2014) – The deadline passed yesterday for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to file petitions at the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal one or both federal appeals court decisions striking down a new Board rule that required virtually every private-sector employer in the country to post biased information about employee rights online and in the workplace.

The Board’s inaction lets stand two appeals courts’ victories won by the National Right to Work Foundation and other groups challenging the NLRB’s aggressive and unprecedented rule-making.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (January 3, 2014) – The deadline passed yesterday for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to file petitions at the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal one or both federal appeals court decisions striking down a new Board rule that required virtually every private-sector employer in the country to post biased information about employee rights online and in the workplace.

The Board’s inaction lets stand two appeals courts’ victories won by the National Right to Work Foundation and other groups challenging the NLRB’s aggressive and unprecedented rule-making.

At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, attorneys from the Foundation and other groups won a unanimous decision striking down the rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also struck down the rule in a separate legal challenge filed by other groups.

The NLRB rule required employers who have never committed a violation or even been accused of unfair labor practices to post an incomplete notice about employee rights. The rule also stipulated that employers who did not comply would be guilty of violating federal labor law.

The rule provided no corresponding requirement to give employees information about how to exercise their rights to refrain from union membership and forced political activity, or to remove a union from their workplace.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement reacting to the NLRB’s capitulation:

«By promulgating this sweeping new requirement, the NLRB clearly overstepped its statutory authority in a heavy-handed attempt to force more workers into forced unionism ranks. The NLRB’s rule would have required almost every job provider in America to post biased, one-sided notices about workers’ rights. Under the rule, Mom and Pop shops, small businesses, larger companies – even some religiously-affiliated organizations – would have been forced to comply.

«Eight federal judges in two federal appeals court circuits have considered the NLRB’s rule and all eight judges have found the rule to be unlawful in whole or in part. It appears the unanimous voice of the judiciary has forced the Obama Labor Board to back down from its attempt to empower union bosses yet again at the expense of the rights of employees and employers.»

Foundation-Assisted Michigan Workers File Brief in Federal Court Supporting State Right to Work Law

Workers defend free choice for workers against spurious union boss legal challenge

Detroit, MI (December 27, 2013) – Today, a federal court judge accepted an amicus curiae brief filed by four Michigan workers defending Michigan’s recently-enacted Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending before the court.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Terry Bowman, Brian Pannebecker, Aaric Lewis, and Robert Harris filed the brief last week with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Click here to read the full release.

Detroit, MI (December 27, 2013) – Today, a federal court judge accepted an amicus curiae brief filed by four Michigan workers defending Michigan’s recently-enacted Right to Work law from a union legal challenge pending before the court.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Terry Bowman, Brian Pannebecker, Aaric Lewis, and Robert Harris filed the brief last week with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case is a federal lawsuit filed by Michigan State AFL-CIO union officials seeking to overturn the law, arguing that because federal law preempts the enforcement of state Right to Work laws in certain limited respects, the whole law is invalid.

In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys point out that the twenty-four state private-sector Right to Work laws are protected under federal labor law and cite various federal and state precedents that support their argument. Despite several prior preemption challenges to other state Right to Work laws, there is not a single case invalidating a Right to Work law.

All four workers are or were employed in workplaces where a forced dues contract was in place between their employers and union hierarchies before the Right to Work law was enacted. Consequently, the workers could be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs, despite the fact they do not belong to the union nor sought the union’s so-called «representation.»

Michigan’s Right to Work law states that no employee can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment, but forced dues contracts between unions and employers entered into prior to the law’s effective date remain in force throughout the state until they expire.

«After suffering a major legislative defeat and being rejected by voters when they attempted to entrench forced unionism in the Michigan Constitution, Michigan union bosses are now seeking to strike down Michigan’s Right to Work law in the courts,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Workers shouldn’t be forced to join or pay tribute to a union just to keep a job, which is why we applaud these workers for standing up to protect their Right to Work.»