Worker Advocate Urges House Chairmen to Investigate Questionable Pro-Union Rule Change

National Mediation Board’s new rules allow airline and railway workers to be unionized without majority support

Washington, DC (January 10, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, is urging Congress to investigate a recent rule change at the National Mediation Board (NMB) that dramatically increases the power of union officials to organize workers in the airline and railway industries. Foundation President Mark Mix submitted letters to Representatives John Kline, John Mica, and Darrell Issa on Wednesday, encouraging them to open an immediate investigation into the NMB’s new election procedures.

Last year, the Board hastily implemented new union certification procedures over the objections of NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty. Foundation attorneys currently represent five Delta employees who are challenging the NMB’s rule change in federal court.

The two NMB members who voted to approve the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). Both unions were a major part of an AFL-CIO-led coalition that prompted the NMB to discard its previous election procedures, which had remained in force for 75 years under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Click here to read more. 

Washington, DC (January 10, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, is urging Congress to investigate a recent rule change at the National Mediation Board (NMB) that dramatically increases the power of union officials to organize workers in the airline and railway industries. Foundation President Mark Mix submitted letters to Representatives John Kline, John Mica, and Darrell Issa on Wednesday, encouraging them to open an immediate investigation into the NMB’s new election procedures.

Last year, the Board hastily implemented new union certification procedures over the objections of NMB Chair Elizabeth Dougherty. Foundation attorneys currently represent five Delta employees who are challenging the NMB’s rule change in federal court.

The two NMB members who voted to approve the new rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). Both unions were a major part of an AFL-CIO-led coalition that prompted the NMB to discard its previous election procedures, which had remained in force for 75 years under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

Foundation attorneys state that the procedural changes “stack the deck” in favor of forced unionization. Under these new rules, the threshold for unionization is lowered to a standard that would allow a minority of workers to certify a union as the monopoly bargaining agent for all employees in a given workplace.

Foundation attorneys believe that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process. The rule change is particularly troubling because the procedure for workers to eject an unwanted union in the rail and airline industries is lengthier and more complicated than in other industries.

“A hastily-implemented rule change shepherded through by two former union officials is about to deprive thousands of workers of their right to free and fair workplace elections,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We urge Congressmen Issa, Kline, and Mica to immediately launch an investigation into this gross violation of employee rights.”

Workers Assert Constitutionally-Protected Rights After Union Officials Demand Personal Information

Right to Work Foundation assists Sacramento healthcare providers coerced into union forced dues ranks

Sacramento, CA (December 20, 2010) – A Sutter Roseville Medical Center healthcare professional has filed federal labor charges against a local union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Massen filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in San Francisco.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who elects to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers – West union officials refuse to provide the Center’s nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires. SEIU United Healthcare union officials also require the workers to annually object, a tactic designed to force workers into paying full union dues. Foundation attorneys defeated the annual objection requirement of another union before the NLRB earlier this year.

Additionally, this union requires employees who choose not to join the union to provide their social security numbers to refrain from supporting the union officials’ non-bargaining expenses, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

Read the entire release here.

Sacramento, CA (December 20, 2010) – A Sutter Roseville Medical Center healthcare professional has filed federal labor charges against a local union for coercing her and her colleagues into paying forced union dues.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Mary Massen filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board regional office in San Francisco.

Because California does not have Right to Work protections for its workers, Massen, who elects to refrain from formal union membership, is still forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. However, because of a National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, she cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities. Union officials are also legally obligated to inform workers of these rights and to provide workers with an independently verified audit of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers – West union officials refuse to provide the Center’s nonmember employees with the disclosure Beck requires. SEIU United Healthcare union officials also require the workers to annually object, a tactic designed to force workers into paying full union dues. Foundation attorneys defeated the annual objection requirement of another union before the NLRB earlier this year.

Additionally, this union requires employees who choose not to join the union to provide their social security numbers to refrain from supporting the union officials’ non-bargaining expenses, further discouraging workers from exercising their rights.

The use of social security numbers by union bosses to retaliate against workers who refuse to toe the union line is not without precedent. In an ongoing case, Foundation attorneys are assisting 16 employees in North Carolina whose social security numbers and other personal information were publicly posted by union officials in apparent retaliation for exercising their right to not join the union.

“It is unconscionable for union officials to require employees to give away sensitive personal information for no other reason than to discourage them from exercising their constitutional rights” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “California needs a Right to Work law to protect workers from these forced unionism abuses in the future.”

Home-Care Providers Take Case Challenging State Unionization Scheme to Federal Appeals Court

Right to Work Foundation assists home-based personal care providers pushed into union ranks against their will

Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.

The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.

Read the entire release here.

Chicago, IL (December 13, 2010) – A group of home-based personal care providers have filed a federal appeal against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their agreement to force Illinois’s home-based personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the personal care providers filed their appeal with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge ruled against them.

The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the providers after Quinn signed an executive order designating 4,500 home-based personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities as “public employees” and susceptible to unwanted union boss political “representation.”

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses have been competing to force their monopoly control over the workers, even having out-of-state union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics. Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his closely-contested primary campaign earlier this year.

Quinn’s executive order mirrored one issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers were designated as state workers for the purpose of granting union bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them. Quinn’s executive order expanded Blagojevich’s to cover the additional 4,500 providers who were not included in the first executive order.

In a mail-in vote, the providers soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to further forced unionization efforts.

Pam Harris and several other home-care providers filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers, challenging the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

“This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In effect Governor Quinn is picking the lobbyists of Illinois’s personal care providers, all in exchange for the union bosses’ support and political contributions.”

Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter

Union officials failed to find work for carpenter, then retaliated against him for working to support his family without paying tribute to union bosses

Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.

After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.

A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Read the entire release here.

Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.

After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.

A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

CRCC union bosses dropped the lawsuit after attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation took up the case for Crenshaw providing free legal representation.

“It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive unemployed workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Confiscatory fines and kangaroo courts are just some of the disturbing, yet increasingly-used tactics of union boss intimidation that are all too common in states like Illinois where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”

Pasco Tyson Plant Workers Force Secret Ballot Vote to Remove Unwanted Union from Workplace

Union bosses conspired to block employee vote after cutting backroom deal

Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.

Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.

In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.

Read the entire release here.

Wallula, WA (November 16, 2010) – After receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Wallula-based Tyson Foods Inc. employees prevailed in a protracted legal battle to have a secret ballot vote to remove a local union from their workplace.

Last year, Tyson (NYSE: TSN) recognized the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1439 union as the employees’ monopoly bargaining agent after a controversial “card check” union organizing campaign. Union officials then gave employees only 24 hours to vote on whether or not to ratify the union’s contract with the company. They also required employees to sign union dues deduction authorizations in order to vote – discouraging many employees from voting. Only 61 of the facility’s 1,177 employees actually voted.

In response, a group of independent-minded employees attempted to file a decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a secret ballot election to determine the fate of their bargaining status. Tyson company officials reprimanded the employees and confiscated the employees’ petition. Another group of employees then successfully filed a second petition with the NLRB to obtain a vote.

The workers relied on the Board’s 2007 Dana Corporation decision in which Foundation attorneys won new rights for employees intended to counteract the intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during union organizing campaigns, most often as a result of “card check.”

Dana allows workers to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer notifies employees that it has recognized a monopoly bargaining agent without a secret ballot vote. This check gives workers some ability to stop union organizers from gaining monopoly control over a workplace.

UFCW union lawyers challenged the employees’ petition, arguing that the union’s new contract with the company barred an employee election to remove the union. However, the NLRB Regional Director in Seattle ruled last week that the employer and union officials failed to post notices as required by Dana informing the employees of their right to a secret ballot election. He therefore upheld the validity of the employees’ petition for a secret ballot vote.

The Regional Director also rejected the union’s argument that, because Dana is being challenged by union lawyers in five other cases across the country, its precedent should not be followed. The very Foundation attorneys who originally won the landmark Dana case are providing free legal aid to employees seeking to protect their Dana rights in two of those cases before the NLRB.

“The NLRB should allow employees the right to defend themselves from union organizing abuses including collusion between union and company officials and aggressive ‘card check’ campaigns,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “A secret ballot election gives workers at least a fighting chance to prevent union bosses from springing their unwanted ‘representation’ on unsuspecting or vulnerable workers.”