Worker Advocate Files Brief in Federal Dispute over Forced Unionization in Michigan Public Projects

Union bosses seek to uphold discriminatory system in awarding public contracts

Cincinnati, OH (January 24 2013) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed a brief in support of a Michigan law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called «project labor agreements» (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.

Foundation staff attorneys filed the amicus curiae («friend of the court») brief yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit located in Cincinnati.

Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on public construction projects. Shortly thereafter, Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and Genesse, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council union bosses challenged the law in federal court, claiming federal labor law preempts the state’s ability to opt out of mandating PLAs on state-funded public construction projects.

Click here to read the full release.

Cincinnati, OH (January 24 2013) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed a brief in support of a Michigan law prohibiting state and local government agencies from imposing so-called «project labor agreements» (PLAs) that require unionized workers for public projects.

Foundation staff attorneys filed the amicus curiae («friend of the court») brief yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit located in Cincinnati.

Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting government-mandated PLAs on public construction projects. Shortly thereafter, Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and Genesse, Lapeer, Shiawassee Building and Construction Trades Council union bosses challenged the law in federal court, claiming federal labor law preempts the state’s ability to opt out of mandating PLAs on state-funded public construction projects.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys – joining attorneys representing the Associated Builders and Contractors and its Michigan affiliate and the National Federation of Independent Business – argue that a lower court’s ruling striking down the new PLA law is both radical and insupportable. The lower court held that federal labor law governing private-sector labor relations somehow compels state governments to require the unionization of workers on public projects.

Foundation attorneys also point out the discriminatory nature of PLAs sacrifices workers’ rights of free choice and imposes unwanted union representation on workers if they work on a public project.

Foundation attorneys have filed similar briefs in numerous federal courts supporting the constitutionality of state governments repealing PLA mandates.

«Project Labor Agreements effectively discriminate against the 85 percent of all construction workers who are not under union monopoly control,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «State and local governments owe it to the taxpayers to award public construction contracts to those who will do the best work at the best price, not employers who work with bureaucrats to shove a union down their workers’ throats.»

Federal Court Upholds Wisconsin Governor’s Public-Sector Unionism Reforms

Workers asked court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Chicago, IL (January 18, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, also known as "Act 10."

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees moved to intervene in the lawsuit in favor of the law after lawyers from seven unions, led by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, challenged it in federal court. The three civil servants, Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz, were permitted to file amicus briefs in the district court.

Union lawyers sought to strike down the law’s annual union recertification requirements, ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues, new limits on the scope of what union officials can demand in contract negotiations, and a provision that granted most of Wisconsin’s public employees Right to Work protections.

Click here to read the full release.

Chicago, IL (January 18, 2013) – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, also known as "Act 10."

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees moved to intervene in the lawsuit in favor of the law after lawyers from seven unions, led by the Wisconsin Education Association Council, challenged it in federal court. The three civil servants, Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz, were permitted to file amicus briefs in the district court.

Union lawyers sought to strike down the law’s annual union recertification requirements, ban on the use of taxpayer funded-payroll systems to collect union dues, new limits on the scope of what union officials can demand in contract negotiations, and a provision that granted most of Wisconsin’s public employees Right to Work protections.

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, released the following statement in regards to the court’s decision:

"The appellate court upheld all of ‘Act 10’ as constitutional. The court relied on principles established in Foundation-supported U.S. Supreme Court victories which have held that union bosses have no constitutional power to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, or constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers’ paychecks.

"The court’s decision strikes a mighty blow for individual workers who do not want anything to do with an unwanted union in their workplace. Unfortunately for Wisconsin government union bosses, the constitutionality of Right to Work laws has long been a settled question. We’re happy to report that the court rejected the union lawyers’ frivolous arguments and ensured that thousands of Wisconsin’s civil servants will continue to labor free from union coercion.

"No Wisconsin public worker should ever be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Now it is time for Wisconsin’s legislature to protect that right for Wisconsin’s private-sector workers and pass a private-sector Right to Work law."

Hammond, IN (January 17, 2012) – A United States District Court Judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 lawyers challenging Indiana’s recently-enacted Right to Work law. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement responding to the decision:

“Union bosses want to undo what thousands of Hoosier citizens have worked hard to achieve through the democratic process. Unfortunately for the IUOE, the constitutionality of state Right to Work laws has long been a settled question. We’re happy to report that Judge Simon rejected their frivolous arguments and ensured that millions of Indianans will continue to labor free from union coercion.”

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, representing four Indiana workers who support the Right to Work law, conferred with lawyers for the State of Indiana about the arguments that were made to defend the law.

The four Hoosier citizens who opposed the union’s legal challenge were David Bercot, a certified wastewater operator for the ITR Concession Company in Fort Wayne; Joel Tibbetts, a Minteq International assistant manager in Valparaiso; Douglas Richards, an employee with the Goshen-based Cequent Towing Products; and Larry Getts, a Dana Holding Corporation technician in Albion.

IUOE Local 150, headquartered in suburban Chicago, filed the lawsuit last February challenging Indiana’s Right to Work law and requesting an injunction against its implementation.

Judge Philip Simon dismissed all of the union’s claims, but he did not rule on arguments contesting the law on the grounds that it violates Indiana’s constitution, leaving that to state courts to decide. A United Steel Workers legal challenge based on different arguments is proceeding in Indiana state court, where two other Foundation-assisted employees have filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the law is consistent with their state’s constitution.

Indiana is the nation’s 24th Right to Work state. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans support the Right to Work principle, including 80 percent of union members.

Caterpillar Workers Win Federal Settlement from Machinist Union Hierarchy for Strike Discipline Violations

Union officials demand hundreds thousands of dollars in strike fines from workers

Chicago, IL (January 17, 2013) – Two Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) workers have won a federal settlement from a local Machinist union after union brass illegally charged them full union dues and attempted to punish them for working during a highly-publicized strike against the company even though the workers were not union members.

The settlement stems from a federal unfair labor practice charge Daniel Eggleston and Steven Olsen filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union and its local District Lodge 851 affiliate.

Eggleston and Olsen have refrained from union membership in the IAM union for years and are thus exempted from the union hierarchy’s constitution and bylaws. On May 1, Machinists Local 851 union bosses ordered all of the over 800 Rockdale Caterpillar workers on strike. Eggleston and Olsen, along with over a hundred other workers, continued to work despite IAM union boss demands.

Click here to read the full release.

Chicago, IL (January 17, 2013) – Two Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) workers have won a settlement from a local Machinist union after union brass illegally charged them full union dues and attempted to punish them for working during a highly-publicized strike against the company even though the workers were not union members.

The settlement stems from a federal unfair labor practice charge Daniel Eggleston and Steven Olsen filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union and its local District Lodge 851 affiliate.

Eggleston and Olsen have refrained from union membership in the IAM union for years and are thus exempted from the union hierarchy’s constitution and bylaws. On May 1, Machinists Local 851 union bosses ordered all of the over 800 Rockdale Caterpillar workers on strike. Eggleston and Olsen, along with over a hundred other workers, continued to work despite IAM union boss demands.

In response, IAM Local 851 union bosses demanded that Eggleston and Olsen, and scores of other workers, appear before a union tribunal to be disciplined for refusing to leave their jobs during the strike. However, under federal law, workers who are not union members cannot be disciplined for continuing to work during a union boss-ordered strike.

Moreover, despite the fact that Eggleston and Olsen exercised their right under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communication Workers v. Beck not to pay full union dues, Local 851 union officials continued to extract full dues from their paychecks and then forced them to jump through hoops to get back the money the union illegally took.

Because Illinois does not have a Right to Work law, workers who refrain from union membership can be forced to pay part of union dues and fees. However, the Court held in Beck that workers who refrain from union membership cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as politics and ideological causes.

The union hierarchy was forced to settle Eggleston and Olsen’s charge. The union officials dropped their attempts to punish the two workers for continuing to work during the strike and agreed to refund the amount of union dues illegally taken from the workers’ paychecks.

Foundation attorneys anticipate that charges will be filed for other Caterpillar workers at the facility in the coming weeks. Some other workers who contacted the Foundation for free legal aid were fined over $30,000 by the union.

«Militant IAM union bosses are trying to intimidate over a hundred Caterpillar workers who had the temerity to not toe the union line and instead provide for their families,» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «This case underscores the need for an Illinois Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.»

Elkton, MD (January 16, 2012) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, IKEA employees Kelvin Smith and Robert Rammel have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against their employer and the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union. Smith and Rammel allege that IKEA and IAM officials failed to notify them of their rights to refrain from union membership and opt out of some union dues.

In Maryland and other states without Right to Work laws, employees can be required to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. However, workers also have the right to refrain from formally joining a union and opt out of paying for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as lobbying and political activism.

Not only did IAM officials and IKEA fail to notify Smith, Rammel, and their coworkers of their rights, they actively misled employees about their obligations to the union. IAM officials claimed that joining the union and paying full dues were required as a condition of employment.

Moreover, the IAM’s membership application hid a notice to employees about their right to refrain from full dues-paying union membership in small, hard-to-decipher tan print on the back of a pink form. IAM officials also told employees that their obligation to pay full dues superseded that notice, regardless of what the text said about federal law.

Finally, IAM officials threatened to have Smith and Rammel fired if they refused to join the union and pay full dues.

Smith and Rammel’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“Union officials actively misled IKEA employees about their rights in order to collect more forced dues cash for the IAM’s coffers,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Independent-minded workers will continue to face similar schemes until Maryland passes a Right to Work law, which would ensure that union membership and dues payment are completely voluntary.”

Supreme Court Asks for Solicitor General’s Brief in Backroom Union Organizing Case

Right to Work legal challenge could determine if companies are allowed to hand over sensitive employee information to aggressive union organizers

Washington, DC (January 14, 2012) – Today, the United States Supreme Court requested a brief from the U.S. Solicitor General in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that could determine if companies are allowed to hand over workers’ personal information to union organizers in exchange for union concessions at the employees’ expense.

Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

"We’re pleased the Supreme Court wants more views on Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that has important implications for worker rights. Big Labor organizers should not be able to offer secret deals for workers they have no relationship with that exchange union concessions for employees’ personal information. The Labor Management Relations Act is intended to prevent backroom payoffs to union officials like the ones at issue in Mulhall, which is why the Supreme Court should take the case and make sure that law does not become an empty letter."

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (January 14, 2013) – Today, the United States Supreme Court requested a brief from the U.S. Solicitor General in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that could determine if companies are allowed to hand over workers’ personal information to union organizers in exchange for union concessions at the employees’ expense.

Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

"We’re pleased the Supreme Court wants more views on Mulhall v. UNITE HERE, a case that has important implications for worker rights. Big Labor organizers should not be able to offer secret deals for workers they have no relationship with that exchange union concessions for employees’ personal information. The Labor Management Relations Act is intended to prevent backroom payoffs to union officials like the ones at issue in Mulhall, which is why the Supreme Court should take the case and make sure that law does not become an empty letter."

With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall filed a lawsuit challenging an organizing pact between his employer and UNITE HERE in 2008. 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. Mulhall argued that the company’s concessions, such as giving organizers employees’ personal information, were of substantial monetary value because they made UNITE HERE’s organizing drive easier and less expensive.

Mulhall won a significant victory last spring, when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the company’s organizing assistance could constitute "a thing of value." UNITE HERE lawyers quickly petitioned the Supreme Court for review, prompting Foundation attorneys to file a cross-petition asking the Court to examine certain aspects of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. Foundation attorneys believe that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision was too narrowly tailored to always prevent companies from aiding union organizers with valuable concessions.