Union Bosses Levy Retaliatory Strike Fine Against Worker After Telling Him to Continue Working During Strike

Worker fined over $7,300 for exercising his right to refrain from formal union membership

Kansas City, MO (May 9, 2012) – A Honeywell nuclear assembly worker has filed a federal charge against a local union for retaliating against him with a $7,361.36 fine for exercising his right to refrain from union membership and continue to do his job during a union boss-instigated strike.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Daniel Gudde filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in Overland Park, Kansas on Friday.

Gudde began working at Honeywell in late September believing he had to join the International Association of Machinist (IAM) Local Lodge 778 union. In early October, IAM Local 778 union officials instigated a strike. Gudde and three of his coworkers were unsure if they had to go on strike as union members or if they had to fulfill a required 30 day probationary period of employment.

Union officials told Gudde and his colleagues to continue to work to complete the 30 day probationary period.

Read the entire release here.

Kansas City, MO (May 9, 2012) – A Honeywell nuclear assembly worker has filed a federal charge against a local union for retaliating against him with a $7,361.36 fine for exercising his right to refrain from union membership and continue to do his job during a union boss-instigated strike.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Daniel Gudde filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in Overland Park, Kansas on Friday.

Gudde began working at Honeywell in late September believing he had to join the International Association of Machinist (IAM) Local Lodge 778 union. In early October, IAM Local 778 union officials instigated a strike. Gudde and three of his coworkers were unsure if they had to go on strike as union members or if they had to fulfill a required 30 day probationary period of employment.

Union officials told Gudde and his colleagues to continue to work to complete the 30 day probationary period. After the probationary period, union bosses obligated Gudde and his coworkers to leave their jobs at the nuclear facility. Union members bound by the union’s constitution and bylaws can be fined for continuing to work during a strike.

After the 30 day period, Gudde learned of his right to resign from full dues paying union membership at any time. He notified the IAM union hierarchy that he was resigning from formal union membership when his 30 day period ended and returned to work after a couple of days. Workers who refrain from union membership are not subject to a union’s constitution and bylaws and cannot be fined or otherwise disciplined for working during a strike.

However, because Missouri does not have a Right to Work law, Gudde is still forced to pay a certain amount of union dues and fees to the union.

In mid-March, IAM union bosses fined Gudde $7,361.36 for working during the strike. Moreover, three coworkers who did not resign from the union but also worked during the 30 day probation period were not fined, thus suggesting the fine was in retaliation for Gudde exercising his rights.

«Cynical IAM union bosses are retaliating against a worker for exercising his rights to continue providing for himself and his family during a strike, even after they told him to keep working,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «These types of compulsory unionism injustices will continue to occur until Missouri passes Right to Work protections for its workers.»

Lake County, IN (May 7, 2012) – Two Indiana citizens, David Brubaker and Douglas Richards, have just submitted an amicus curiae brief to defend Indiana’s newly-enacted Right to Work law from a frivolous union legal challenge in state court.

Brubaker and Richards are both clients of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. To comply with Indiana bar and court rules, the Foundation engaged Indiana attorneys Asheesh Agarwal and David Wagner of the Indianapolis office of Ogletree Deakins to file the workers’ amicus brief.

The anti-Right to Work lawsuit, filed by United Steel Workers (USW) lawyers in April, makes a number of dubious claims about Indiana’s new law, including the argument that unions have a right to force workers to pay for their unwanted services.

Both Brubaker and Richards are employed in workplaces where a forced dues contract remains in place between their employers and the USW. Consequently, both workers are still 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 recently-enacted 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 effective date of the law remain in force throughout the state.

According to Brubaker and Richards, monopoly bargaining agreements that force nonunion employees to subsidize union activities – such as the agreements both workers are currently subject to – infringe on their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. Brubaker and Richards have no desire to affiliate with the USW union or contribute financially to union activities, and Indiana’s new Right to Work law frees them from those obligations as soon as their employers’ old contracts with the USW union expire.

“Hoosier citizens want to make their voices heard against a frivolous union legal challenge to Indiana’s new 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 David Brubaker and Douglas Richards for standing up for their rights in state court.”

U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Obama Administration Stance in Case Challenging Backroom Union Deals

Obama Labor Board and Departments of Labor, Justice sought to roll back worker’s federal court victory

Hollywood, FL (May 3, 2012) – The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has shot down the Obama Administration’s attempt to roll back a worker’s protracted, precedent-setting legal victory against a local union.

The case is a legal challenge initiated by Hollywood, Florida-area Mardi Gras Gaming groundskeeper Martin Mulhall with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

In 2008, Mardi Gras entered into an agreement with Unite Here Local 355 union officials promising that it would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from speaking about the downsides of unionization. In return, the Unite Here officials expended over one hundred thousand dollars to support a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike the facility.

Read the entire release here.

Hollywood, FL (May 3, 2012) – The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has shot down the Obama Administration’s attempt to roll back a worker’s protracted, precedent-setting legal victory against a local union.

The case is a legal challenge initiated by Hollywood, Florida-area Mardi Gras Gaming groundskeeper Martin Mulhall with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

In 2008, Mardi Gras entered into an agreement with Unite Here Local 355 union officials promising that it would hand over employees’ personal contact information (including home addresses), grant union operatives access to company facilities for the purpose of organizing through a coercive card check campaign, and refrain from speaking about the downsides of unionization. In return, the Unite Here officials expended over one hundred thousand dollars to support a gambling ballot initiative and guaranteed not to picket, boycott, or strike the facility.

Federal law aimed at preventing unions from agreeing to undermine workers’ rights in exchange for concessions from management explicitly prohibits employers from giving «any money or other thing of value» to unions. Mulhall sued Unite Here Local 355 and Mardi Gras in 2008, arguing that the company’s organizing assistance to the union is of substantial monetary value to the union.

In a precedent-setting decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with Mulhall, ruling that organizing assistance can be an unlawful «thing of value.» Union lawyers subsequently petitioned the full court to rehear the case.

Obama Justice and Labor Department officials, along with controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the union lawyers’ position.

The court rejected the union bosses’ petition, even noting that not one of its regular active judges requested a poll on whether to grant the union lawyers’ request for rehearing.

«Union bosses and the Obama Administration have failed to roll back a major, precedent-setting victory for workers,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Today, the court reaffirmed that union organizing is indeed a thing of value to union bosses who want to sell out workers to pave the way for monopoly control over a workplace.»

Civil Servants Appeal Wisconsin Public-Sector Unionism Case to Federal Appeals Court

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

Madison, WI (May 1, 2011) – Three Wisconsin public employees have asked a federal appeals court to uphold all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, known as «Act 10,» in the latest development regarding the ongoing court saga.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Pleasant Prairie English teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz filed their appeal late last week supporting the reforms which limited government union officials’ monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.

All three Wisconsin civil servants want to exercise the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. In their earlier brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, they likened «the ‘services’ provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment.» The teachers also object to the union’s use of their forced union dues for the union’s political activities and to the public employer serving as the unions’ collecting agents.

The workers are appealing the district court’s rulings denying them intervenor status and striking down Act 10’s provisions that protect workers with a yearly secret-ballot recertification election to determine whether they want a union hierarchy to remain in their workplace and that prohibit the deduction of union dues.

Read the entire release here.

Madison, WI (May 1, 2011) – Three Wisconsin public employees have asked a federal appeals court to uphold all of Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector unionism reform measures, known as «Act 10,» in the latest development regarding the ongoing court saga.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Pleasant Prairie English teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz filed their appeal late last week supporting the reforms which limited government union officials’ monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.

All three Wisconsin civil servants want to exercise the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. In their earlier brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, they likened «the ‘services’ provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment.» The teachers also object to the union’s use of their forced union dues for the union’s political activities and to the public employer serving as the unions’ collecting agents.

The workers are appealing the district court’s rulings denying them intervenor status and striking down Act 10’s provisions that protect workers with a yearly secret-ballot recertification election to determine whether they want a union hierarchy to remain in their workplace and that prohibit the deduction of union dues.

After the workers filed their appeal, the federal district court stayed its injunction against Act 10’s annual recertification requirement with regard to the 417 unions that refrained from filing for recertification or lost a recertification vote. Those 417 unions will remain decertified during the appeal, and the 58,180 employees freed from union control in their workplace will not be forced to accept the representation of or pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

«These three courageous workers carry on the fight to uphold workplace freedom for all of Wisconsin’s civil servants who want nothing to do with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’,» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «With the help of the National Right to Work Foundation, these workers are resisting Big Labor’s all-out assault to restore its forced-dues privileges over Wisconsin’s public workers.»

Hotel Union Faces Federal Charges for Forcing Nonmember Employees to Fund Lobbying, Strikes

Case emphasizes need for a Right to Work law in the Aloha State

Honolulu, HI (April 27, 2012) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Honolulu Hilton employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the UNITE HERE Local 5 union.

Grant Suzuki and Daryl Sakugawa don’t belong to Local 5 but can still be forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment because Hawaii lacks a Right to Work law. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as political lobbying or members-only activities.

In December 2011, Suzuki and Sakugawa received a breakdown of union financial expenditures from Local 5. According to the union’s books, both employees were forced to contribute to a variety of activities outside the scope of workplace negotiations, including UNITE HERE political lobbying and a union strike fund.

To read the rest, click here.

Honolulu, HI (April 27, 2012) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, two Honolulu hotel employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the UNITE HERE Local 5 union.

Grant Suzuki and Daryl Sakugawa don’t belong to Local 5 but can still be forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment because Hawaii lacks a Right to Work law. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as political lobbying or members-only activities.

In December 2011, Suzuki and Sakugawa received a breakdown of union financial expenditures from Local 5. According to the union’s books, both employees were forced to contribute to a variety of activities outside the scope of workplace negotiations, including UNITE HERE political lobbying and a union strike fund.

Suzuki has repeatedly clashed with union officials, filing successful unfair labor practice charges in 2008 to force UNITE HERE operatives to return illegally-seized union dues. Suzuki has since been targeted by union officials for harassment because he informed his coworkers of their rights to opt-out of union dues, resign their union membership, and continue working during union-instigated strikes.

The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“They’ve been caught red-handed before, but Local 5 bosses continue to have no qualms about extracting forced dues from nonunion hotel workers to fund their political agenda,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we hope the NLRB will promptly return Suzuki and Sakugawa’s dues to their rightful owners, the only permanent solution is a Hawaii Right to Work law, which would make union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”