Worker Advocate Challenges Obama Labor Board Pro-Union Boss Election Rule Change

New rule would allow union bosses ambush workers into forced-dues-paying union ranks

Washington, DC (August 18, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees.

In late June, the NLRB proposed new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted. The new rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to share truthful information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.

Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose the personal information of workers (including their home address, phone number, email address, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided employees to intimidation, harassment, or worse.

The new rules also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the employees.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (August 18, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – filed formal comments today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing the Board’s proposed new guidelines which will help give union organizers the upper hand over independent-minded employees.

In late June, the NLRB proposed new rules dictating how union organizing elections are conducted. The new rules dramatically shorten the time frame individual workers have to share truthful information with their coworkers about the effects of unionization.

Moreover, the rules require job providers to disclose the personal information of workers (including their home address, phone number, email address, and shift information), thus opening up dissenting or undecided employees to intimidation, harassment, or worse.

The new rules also create a loophole which allows union organizers to claim they have support of 30 percent of employees in the workplace, the minimum number required to initiate an election, despite a dispute regarding the size of the bargaining unit in question. Then, union organizers who fear that they do not have enough support to win an election could withdraw their request for an election and use the newly-gotten personal information in later attempts to unionize the employees.

Foundation staff attorneys argue in the formal comments that ambush union organizing elections encourage forced unionization of workers who might otherwise be opposed to unionization, and that the rule requiring job providers to hand over the employees’ personal information to union bosses is a violation of workers’ privacy.

«The forced unionism bias is clear: The Obama NLRB is determined to make union organizing campaigns as one-sided as possible and to stifle the rights of employees who may oppose bringing a union into their workplace» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «Although a secret ballot election can’t prevent the fundamental violation of individual rights that occurs under union boss monopoly bargaining, at the very least one is needed that gives workers enough time to educate their coworkers on the downsides of unionization after months or even years of union organizing and propaganda.»

«Rather than adopting this proposal, the NLRB should encourage the rights of independent-minded employees to thoughtfully determine their own fates in the workplace without being placed in greater danger of harassment or intimidation at the hands of aggressive union organizers,» added Mix.

Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

Union bosses illegally force Ohio’s teachers to pay for electioneering

Columbus, Ohio (August 5, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union «fees» taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union’s regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law.

Read the entire release here.

Columbus, Ohio (August 5, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union «fees» taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union’s regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law. In the Foundation-won Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees have due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to be notified how their forced union dues are spent, and how to prevent the spending of their dues for union political and other non-bargaining activities.

The teachers filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in Columbus, late Thursday. The teachers are employed at various school districts, including Marietta City Schools in Marietta; Green Local Schools in Green; the Western Brown School District in Mt. Orab; and the Trumbull County Joint Vocational School District in Warren.

The lawsuit focuses on unlawful union dues confiscations from Ohio teachers’ paychecks during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years and seeks to reclaim the teachers’ mandatory union fees spent illegally. The OEA is currently pouring money in support of a ballot measure to repeal the recently-passed Right to Work law, which makes union dues strictly voluntary for teachers and other public employees.

«OEA union officials have a long history of abusing teachers’ rights in the workplace to fund their political coffers,» said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. «It’s important to remember where the OEA union machine gets a large amount of its money as it gears up its efforts to defeat recent public-sector reforms in the Buckeye State – reforms that allow teachers to opt out of forced dues payments.»

The National Right to Work Foundation – the nation’s premier legal advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – has established numerous precedents and protected legal rights at the U.S. Supreme Court for both private-sector and public-sector workers who wish to refrain from formal union membership and full union dues payment. Currently, the Foundation has a case pending with the Supreme Court brought for teachers in California forced to subsidize union boss political spending.

Civil Servants Slap Government Union Bosses With Second Federal Suit for Illegal Forced Dues Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge union hierarchy for repeatedly flaunting employees’ constitutional rights

Lancaster, PA (August 3, 2011) – Eight public employees have filed a second federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks in unconstitutional amounts and without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who previously provided the employees with free legal aid in their first lawsuit, filed the suit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, previously asked the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and other cases.

In Abood, the High Court ruled that although nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, they cannot be forced to pay for union politics and other union activities unrelated to bargaining. IBEW Local 1600 union officials were compelling the employees to paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues before the lawsuit was settled.

Read the entire release here.

Lancaster, PA (August 3, 2011) – Eight public employees have filed a second federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks in unconstitutional amounts and without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, who previously provided the employees with free legal aid in their first lawsuit, filed the suit yesterday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia.

The borough employees, who have exercised their right to refrain from formal union membership with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1600 union, previously asked the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and other cases.

In Abood, the High Court ruled that although nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, they cannot be forced to pay for union politics and other union activities unrelated to bargaining. IBEW Local 1600 union officials were compelling the employees to paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues before the lawsuit was settled.

The employees are also asking the court to protect their National Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, which requires union officials to comply with specific due-process and disclosure requirements (such as an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced dues union expenditures) before seizing forced dues from nonmembers. IBEW Local 1600 union officials are taking 90.68 percent of full union dues, which the charge states, includes amounts not constitutionally chargeable under the Abood line of cases.

The employees are again suing to obtain refunds of the amount of forced union dues payments illegally taken from their paychecks, plus interest.

«IBEW union bosses are deliberately keeping rank-and-file workers in the dark to keep their forced-dues gravy train going,» said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation Legal Information Director. «Pennsylvania should adopt a Right to Work law so independent-minded employees do not have to jump through legal hoop after legal hoop just to find out what they are being charged for.»

Bridgeport, CT (August 1, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a local police officer has reached a settlement with two unions and the City of Bridgeport after filing suit to reclaim illegally-confiscated union dues.

The agreement requires the Bridgeport Police Local 1159 and Council 15 AFSCME, AFL-CIO unions to refund all illegally-seized dues to William Bailey, a nonunion police officer.

Although Bailey is not a union member, all Bridgeport police officers are subject to a monopoly bargaining agreement between the city and the Bridgeport Police Local 1159 and Council 15 AFSCME, AFL-CIO unions. After resigning his union membership in 2007, Bailey indicated that he wished to opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining in 2011.

Because Connecticut has not passed a Right to Work law, state employees can be forced to pay some union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson holds that public employees must be notified how much of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to collective bargaining – such as members-only events and political activism – and given the opportunity to opt out of paying for those activities.

Despite this precedent, the City of Bridgeport seized, and union operatives collected, the equivalent of full union dues from Bailey’s paycheck since January 2011.

“We’re happy to report that William Bailey will reclaim some of his earnings, but litigation is no substitute for a law that protects workers’ rights,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Until Connecticut makes union membership and dues payment completely voluntary by passing a Right to Work law, similar abuse will continue elsewhere, unchecked.”

Worker Advocate Asks Federal Labor Board to Uphold Precedent Disallowing Forced Unionization of Grad Students

Foundation files brief supporting university teaching assistants’ First Amendment freedom of association

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae («friend of the court») brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers’ arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae («friend of the court») brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers’ arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work. And Foundation attorneys question whether grades would ultimately become a mandatory subject of monopoly bargaining if paid graduate students were treated as employees for purposes of unionization.

«While the UAW may have Marxist dreams that students are ‘workers’ (as opposed to students), who will be in the vanguard of an economic revolution when the workers of the world unite, the fact remains that graduate students are students and not employees, and have little commonality of interest with most employees,» the Foundation pointed out in its brief.

Foundation attorneys also argue that allowing union officials monopoly bargaining power over all teaching assistants would violate the First Amendment freedom of association rights of dissenting teaching assistants, thereby undermining academic freedom.

«UAW officials’ strong-handed attempt to corral graduate students into unwanted union affiliation and force them to pay dues for unwanted union ‘representation’ can only be explained as that the UAW union bosses see the Board’s current makeup favorable to forced unionism,» stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This case shows that union officials will stop at nothing to collect forced dues — from government employees to private-sector workers and even graduate students.»

Los Angeles, CA (July 26, 2011) – With the help of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a Granada Hills clerk has filed unfair labor practice charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770 union. The charges state that union officials misled him into joining the union and paying full dues.

Jordan Rosenfield, an employee at Ralph’s Grocery Company, is subject to a monopoly bargaining agreement between his employer and UFCW Local 770 union officials, which means he can be forced to pay union dues and accept UFCW “representation” as a condition of employment.

However, no employee can be lawfully forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Moreover, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion employees must be given an opportunity to opt out of paying for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as members-only events and political activism.

Despite this precedent, Rosenfield was told that he had to join the union and pay full union dues after taking a job with Ralph’s in late May. On June 30, UFCW officials sent Rosenfield a letter threatening to have him fired if he refused to pay an initiation fee, a reinstatement fee, and two months worth of union dues immediately.

Rosenfield’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency charged with administering private sector labor law.

“Unscrupulous UFCW bosses misled a 21-year old clerk into thinking he had to join up and pay full dues just to make a living,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we hope the NLRB will quickly put an end to this deceitful practice, the only way to protect workers’ rights it to make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, which is why California needs a Right to Work law.”