First Grade Teacher Hits Teacher Union Officials with State Charge for Violating Kansas’s Longstanding Right to Work Law
First Grade Teacher Hits Teacher Union Officials with State Charge for Violating Kansas’s Longstanding Right to Work Law
Union officials stonewall teacher’s attempt to cut off union dues payments
Wichita, KS (December 26, 2013) – A first grade teacher at Peterson Elementary School has filed a state charge against a local teacher union for violating her rights under Kansas’s long-standing Right to Work law.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Tiffani Knowles filed the state charge last week with the Kansas Department of Labor in Topeka.
On July, 31, 2013, Knowles sent a letter to the United Teachers of Wichita (UTW) union stating that she was exercising her right under the state’s Right to Work law to refrain from full union membership and dues payments. Under Kansas’s Right to Work law, union officials must respect workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues.
First Grade Teacher Hits Teacher Union Officials with State Charge for Violating Kansas’s Longstanding Right to Work Law
Wichita, KS (December 26, 2013) – A first grade teacher at Peterson Elementary School has filed a state charge against a local teacher union for violating her rights under Kansas’s long-standing Right to Work law.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Tiffani Knowles filed the state charge last week with the Kansas Department of Labor in Topeka.
On July, 31, 2013, Knowles sent a letter to the United Teachers of Wichita (UTW) union stating that she was exercising her right under the state’s Right to Work law to refrain from full union membership and dues payments. Under Kansas’s Right to Work law, union officials must respect workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues.
Because the union did not receive the letter before August 1, UTW union officials told her that she would have to wait for a union-designated «window period» of July 1, 2014 through July 31, 2014 before she could resign union membership even though UTW’s own constitution states «Members may resign by sending written notice to the United Teachers of Wichita office prior to August 1.»
Knowles points out in her charge that Kansas’s Right to Work law protects her unequivocal right to refrain from union membership at any time. Analogously, federal labor law also protects workers’ absolute right to refrain from union membership at any time without penalty.
Knowles is asking the Kansas Department of Labor to order the UTW union to accept her union membership resignation and either strike down the UTW’s provisions prohibiting workers from freely exercising their Right to Work or require the UTW to accept resignations sent in compliance with its own constitution.
«Union officials are violating their own rules in order to keep this teacher from exercising her right to refrain from union membership and dues payments,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Because state and federal law protect workers’ right to unconditionally refrain from union membership at any time, we call on the Kansas Department of Labor to hold this union’s scheme invalid.
Indiana Workers File Brief in Support of State’s Right to Work Law
Indiana Workers File Brief in Support of State’s Right to Work Law
Hoosier citizens contest spurious union legal challenge
Indianapolis, IN (December 20, 2013) – Two Indiana citizens, Julie Huffman and Michael Miller, have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge now before the Indiana Supreme Court.
Huffman and Miller 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 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 officials 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.
UPS Worker Files Federal Charge against Teamster Union for Ignoring His Rights Under Texas’s Right to Work Law
UPS Worker Files Federal Charge against Teamster Union for Ignoring His Rights Under Texas’s Right to Work Law
Teamster union officials stonewall worker’s attempt to refrain from dues payments
Irving, TX (December 20, 2013) – A Desoto UPS (NYSE: UPS) worker has filed a federal charge against a local Teamster union for violating his rights.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Laroderick Wilson filed the unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Wilson informed the Teamster Local 745 union that he was exercising his right under Texas’s Right to Work law to refrain from union dues payments in September, 2013. Under Texas’s Right to Work law, union officials must respect workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues.
Instead of complying with Wilson’s request, Teamster Local 745 union officials told him that he would have to wait for a union-designated «window period» before he could revoke his dues deduction authorization – a document union officials use to take dues or fees from workers’ paychecks – and opt out of union dues. Revocation of dues deduction authorizations is a matter controlled by federal law, not state Right to Work laws.
Indiana Workers File Brief in Support of State’s Right to Work Law
Indianapolis, IN (December 20, 2013) – Two Indiana citizens, Julie Huffman and Michael Miller, have submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s Right to Work law from a union legal challenge now before the Indiana Supreme Court.
Huffman and Miller 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 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 officials 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 Huffman and Miller are 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, both workers have been forced to pay union dues just to keep their jobs, despite the fact neither belongs to the union nor sought the union’s so-called «representation.»
Although Indiana’s Right to Work law states that no employee can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment, forced dues contracts between unions and employers entered into prior to the law’s effective date remain in force throughout the state.
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’ right 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.
«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 Julie Huffman and Michael Miller for standing up for their rights in the state’s supreme court.»
UPS Worker Files Federal Charge against Teamster Union for Ignoring His Rights Under Texas’s Right to Work Law
Irving, TX (December 20, 2013) – A Desoto UPS (NYSE: UPS) worker has filed a federal charge against a local Teamster union for violating his rights.
With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Laroderick Wilson filed the unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Wilson informed the Teamster Local 745 union that he was exercising his right under Texas’s Right to Work law to refrain from union dues payments in September, 2013. Under Texas’s Right to Work law, union officials must respect workers’ right to refrain from the payment of any union dues.
Instead of complying with Wilson’s request, Teamster Local 745 union officials told him that he would have to wait for a union-designated «window period» before he could revoke his dues deduction authorization – a document union officials use to take dues or fees from workers’ paychecks – and opt out of union dues. Revocation of dues deduction authorizations is a matter controlled by federal law, not state Right to Work laws.
Teamster Local 745 union officials have refused to provide Wilson with a copy of his dues deduction authorization and have told him that if he wants a copy, he must appear in person at the union hall.
«Teamster union bosses are trying to keep workers from exercising their rights under Texas’s popular Right to Work law,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Schemes like this show that the ultimate goal of union officials is more forced dues collected from workers, even when rank-and-file employees want nothing to do with a union.»
Supreme Court Dismisses Union-Backed Petition to Overturn Organizing Case
Supreme Court Dismisses Union-Backed Petition to Overturn Organizing Case
Right to Work Foundation-won Eleventh Circuit ruling stands, putting at risk backroom deals between companies and aggressive union organizers
Washington, DC (December 10, 2013) – Today, the United States Supreme Court announced that it «dismissed as improvidently granted» a union appeal of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE.
The order leaves intact a significant victory for National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and a Florida Mardi Gras Gaming employee in which the appeals court ruled that the company’s organizing assistance to union officials could be unlawful «thing[s] of value.» Consequently, as Jack Goldsmith, the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, today said about the Mulhall dismissal in a blog, «as long as CA11’s decision stands, the specter of expensive and difficult litigation will hover over neutrality/bargaining agreements in many circuits, and will indeed chill the making of those agreements.»
Supreme Court Dismisses Union-Backed Petition to Overturn Organizing Case
Washington, DC (December 10, 2013) – Today, the United States Supreme Court announced that it «dismissed as improvidently granted» a union appeal of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE.
The order leaves intact a significant victory for National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and a Florida Mardi Gras Gaming employee in which the appeals court ruled that the company’s organizing assistance to union officials could be unlawful «thing[s] of value.» Consequently, as Jack Goldsmith, the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, today said about the Mulhall dismissal in a blog, «as long as CA11’s decision stands, the specter of expensive and difficult litigation will hover over neutrality/bargaining agreements in many circuits, and will indeed chill the making of those agreements.»
In 2004, UNITE HERE Local 355 and Mardi Gras Gaming entered into an agreement in which union officials promised to spend over one hundred thousand dollars on a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike against Mardi Gras facilities.
In return, Mardi Gras agreed to give union operatives employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses) and grant access to company facilities during a coercive «card check» organizing campaign, refrain from informing workers about the downsides of unionization, and refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees unionized.
Under the Labor Management Relations Act, employers are prohibited from handing over «any money or other thing of value» to union organizers, a provision that is supposed to prevent union officials from selling out workers’ rights in exchange for corporate concessions. With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall sued challenging this organizing pact in 2008. Mulhall alleged that the company’s concessions were of substantial monetary value because they made UNITE HERE’s organizing drive easier and less expensive.
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement in wake of the Court’s order:
«We’re happy to report that the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling will stand, limiting the potential for backroom deals between union organizers and company officials. Management shouldn’t be allowed to turn over employees’ personal information to aggressive Big Labor organizers as a negotiating tactic, which is why the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent is a vital protection for independent-minded workers.
«Union bosses and employers who use workers’ rights as a bargaining chip will now enter into these agreements at their own risk.»
Pro-Act 10 Settlement in Wisconsin Teachers’ Lawsuit Clears Path for Union Recertification Elections
Pro-Act 10 Settlement in Wisconsin Teachers’ Lawsuit Clears Path for Union Recertification Elections
Teachers win right to union recertification elections guaranteed under law
Waukesha, WI (December 5, 2013) – The Waukesha County Circuit Court has approved a settlement between five Wisconsin public school teachers and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) that will allow teachers across the state to determine whether union officials can continue to claim to represent those teachers in their respective workplaces guaranteed under Wisconsin Act 10.
With the help of attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, five Wisconsin public school teachers filed a lawsuit in the state court last month against the WERC after WERC officials canceled the teachers’ recertification elections.
Pro-Act 10 Settlement in Wisconsin Teachers’ Lawsuit Clears Path for Union Recertification Elections
Waukesha, WI (December 5, 2013) – The Waukesha County Circuit Court has approved a settlement between five Wisconsin public school teachers and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) that will allow teachers across the state to determine whether union officials can continue to claim to represent those teachers in their respective workplaces guaranteed under Wisconsin Act 10.
With the help of attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, five Wisconsin public school teachers filed a lawsuit in the state court last month against the WERC after WERC officials canceled the teachers’ recertification elections.
The WERC cancelled the elections, which were originally scheduled to take place in early November, after a Dane County Circuit Court judge halted implementation of the law.
All five teachers are employed in workplaces where they are subject to a union monopoly bargaining agreement, which means all five have been forced to accept the union’s so-called «representation.» The teachers work in school districts in Waukesha, Milwaukee, La Crosse, Racine, and Elmbrook.
Wisconsin Act 10 prevents government sector union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay any union fees, restricts union monopoly bargaining to the issue of employee wages, ends the use of taxpayer funded payroll systems for the collection of union dues, and guarantees that public workers will vote on their union representation yearly.
In compliance with the court’s judgment approving the settlement, the WERC began conducting secret-ballot recertification elections on November 29, 2013.
Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling vacating the Dane County Circuit Court judge’s order that had prohibited the WERC from conducting recertification elections.
«Many independent-minded civil servants have no interest in associating with government sector unions and they deserve to have their voices heard,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Act 10 protects those workers’ right to do so and now these civil servants will be allowed to participate in the elections that they were promised to express their interests regarding union representation.»
