Gas Utility Worker Seeks to Turn Off Forced Union Dues Pipeline for Union Boss Politics

West Virginia needs Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses

Clarksburg, West Virginia (March 31, 2011) – A Dominion Hope utility worker has filed federal charges against a local union after union officials illegally attempted to force him into full-dues-paying union membership.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Dominion Hope employee Jeremy Dimick of West Union filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Wednesday.

Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Local 69 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over Dominion Hope’s employees. In November 2010, Dimick sent a letter to union officials stating that he was exercising his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

Read the entire release here.

Clarksburg, West Virginia (March 31, 2011) – A Dominion Hope utility worker has filed federal charges against a local union after union officials illegally attempted to force him into full-dues-paying union membership.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Dominion Hope employee Jeremy Dimick of West Union filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Wednesday.

Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Local 69 union officials enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges over Dominion Hope’s employees. In November 2010, Dimick sent a letter to union officials stating that he was exercising his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

However, because West Virginia does not have a Right to Work law, workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a part of union dues as a condition of employment, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.

Despite Dimick’s letter, UWUA Local 69 union officials continued to extract full union dues from his paycheck. Then in December, union officials ordered him to file another objection letter and refused to provide him with a legally-required breakdown of union expenditures that had evidence that it was actually verified by an independent audit. Dimick contests the part of union fees used for forcing workers in different industries in the region into union ranks.

Meanwhile, Dimick requested that the UWUA Local 69 union hierarchy respect his First Amendment rights of free speech and let him remove the union logo patch from his uniform. Union officials refuse to honor his request.

“UWUA union officials are not only forcing workers to financially associate with their union, they are also forcing workers to act as walking billboards for an organization they do not support and want nothing to do with,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “West Virginia desperately need a Right to Work law to protect workers from the very union bosses that claim to care about workers’ rights but clearly don’t.”

If enacted, a state Right to Work law would end compulsory union dues by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. Polls consistently show that 8 in 10 Americans support the Right to Work principle, that no worker should be compelled to join a union or pay union dues to get or keep a job. Twenty-two states have already passed Right to Work protections for their workers.

Washington, DC (March 21, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking for information about a series of Google Ads placed by the NLRB from 2008 to 2011.

According to an earlier NLRB statement, the Board received a free Google Ads trial in 2008 and has since discontinued the program. However, other reports indicate that NLRB Google Ads appeared as recently as February of this year.

Moreover, these ads only contained information about workers’ ability to organize or join unions. No record of ads about workers’ rights to refrain from union activities or remove a union from their workplace has been found.

In the wake of former SEIU lawyer Craig Becker’s recess appointment to the Board, numerous media outlets have questioned the NLRB’s ability to impartially administer labor law.

Unfortunately, the NLRB’s Google Ads campaign does nothing to dispel these fears. Foundation attorneys are concerned that the NLRB’s ad buys publicized information about workers’ rights to organize or join a union without providing equally important information about the rights of employees to refrain from union membership or eject unwanted unions from their workplaces.

The Foundation’s FOIA request seeks all documented business transactions between the Board and Google related to online ad buys. Foundation attorneys believe that this information is necessary to determine the extent of the NLRB’s pro-Big Labor bias and to inform the public of how the Board’s budget is being spent.

“We’ve raised persistent questions about the impartiality of the NLRB that have yet to be addressed, and what looks like a selective information campaign through Google Ads is another example of this trend,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “We call upon the NLRB to immediately release any and all information related to this ad campaign to address public concerns about its perceived pro-Big Labor bias.”

Army Wives Driver Wins over $55k in Lost Wages After Teamster Union Boss Blacklisting

Teamster union bosses’ ugly retaliation prevents employee from making a living

Washington, DC (March 17, 2011) – An ABC Studios movie/television driver has won over $55,000 in lost income after Teamster union officials refused to allow him to do his job for nearly a year.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys helped the driver win the case before a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge in Charleston, South Carolina.

Teamster Local 509 union officials currently enjoy exclusive bargaining privileges with ABC Studios in Charleston – and thus have a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC that forces workers to go through Teamster Local 509’s hiring hall in order to obtain a job.

However, because Local 509 union members were working on other television and movie productions, Thomas Coghill – who was from Wilmington, North Carolina and a member of Teamster Local 391 – worked on the set of the Charleston-based Army Wives television series. Coghill worked during the show’s first two seasons beginning in 2008 as a makeup truck driver.

However, as more Local 509 union members became available to work on the production of Army Wives, a dispute over who should be eligible to work on the set of Army Wives erupted between various Teamster union officials and Coghill was removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he was not a member of Local 509. Meanwhile, Local 509 union members continue to receive preferential treatment in job placement on the set of Army Wives.

Read the entire release here.

Washington, DC (March 17, 2011) – An ABC Studios movie/television driver has won over $55,000 in lost income after Teamster union officials refused to allow him to do his job for nearly a year.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys helped the driver win the case before a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge in Charleston, South Carolina.

Teamster Local 509 union officials currently enjoy exclusive bargaining privileges with ABC Studios in Charleston – and thus have a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC that forces workers to go through Teamster Local 509’s hiring hall in order to obtain a job.

However, because Local 509 union members were working on other television and movie productions, Thomas Coghill – who was from Wilmington, North Carolina and a member of Teamster Local 391 – worked on the set of the Charleston-based Army Wives television series. Coghill worked during the show’s first two seasons beginning in 2008 as a makeup truck driver.

However, as more Local 509 union members became available to work on the production of Army Wives, a dispute over who should be eligible to work on the set of Army Wives erupted between various Teamster union officials and Coghill was removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he was not a member of Local 509. Meanwhile, Local 509 union members continue to receive preferential treatment in job placement on the set of Army Wives.

Federal law prohibits union bosses who operate an exclusive union hiring hall from barring employees who are not a member of that union from gaining employment at a workplace.

With free legal assistance from the National Right Work Foundation, Coghill pursued federal unfair labor practice charges against the Teamster Local 509 union bosses’ discrimination. A regional NLRB administrative law judge ruled in Coghill’s favor late last week, and ordered the Teamster Local 509 union hierarchy to pay Coghill $55,467.62 in lost wages (plus interest) and post a notice of employees’ rights in the workplace.

“In this tough economy, it is unconscionable that Teamster Local 509 union bosses would inflict such petty and disgusting discrimination on someone working to put food on the table” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “To prevent these types of ugly forced unionism abuses from occurring in the future, entertainment industry union bosses should be stripped of their government-granted special privileges to force workers under union boss control in order to get or keep a job.”

Wisconsin AFSCME Union Bosses Face Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Forced Dues for Politics

Wisconsin needs Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses

Milwaukee, WI (March 16, 2011) – A U.S. Bank customer service and support employee has filed federal charges against a local union after local union officials illegally attempted to force him and his colleagues into full-dues-paying union membership.

Peter Quinones of Milwaukee filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Tuesday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

After American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 777 union officials were granted monopoly bargaining privileges over approximately 300 U.S. Bank employees, Quinones sent a letter to union officials stating that he was exercising his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full dues paying union membership.

Because Wisconsin is a forced unionism state, workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a certain amount of union dues, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.

Despite his letter, AFSCME Local 777 union officials continued to extract full union dues from his paycheck. After Quinones filed an unfair labor practice charge, union officials still refused to honor his request to exercise his legal rights.

Read the entire release here.

Milwaukee, WI (March 16, 2011) – A U.S. Bank customer service and support employee has filed federal charges against a local union after local union officials illegally attempted to force him and his colleagues into full-dues-paying union membership.

Peter Quinones of Milwaukee filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Tuesday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

After American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 777 union officials were granted monopoly bargaining privileges over approximately 300 U.S. Bank employees, Quinones sent a letter to union officials stating that he was exercising his right under National Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck to refrain from full dues paying union membership.

Because Wisconsin is a forced unionism state, workers who refrain from formal union membership can still be forced to pay a certain amount of union dues, but cannot be compelled to pay the portion of union dues used for the union’s political, lobbying, and member-only activities.

Despite his letter, AFSCME Local 777 union officials continued to extract full union dues from his paycheck. After Quinones filed an unfair labor practice charge, union officials still refused to honor his request to exercise his legal rights.

Quinones’ latest charge seeks to prevent the AFSCME union hierarchy from requiring him to pay forced union fees by automatic deduction from his paycheck in violation of federal law.

“As we have seen in recent weeks, AFSCME union officials will stop at nothing to collect forced union dues from workers – whether they are in the public or private sector – to pay for their political activism,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “Wisconsin’s workers desperately need Right to Work protections to protect them from the very union bosses that claim to care about workers’ rights while violating workers’ rights.”

If enacted, a Wisconsin Right to Work law would end compulsory union dues by making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary. Polls consistently show that 8 in 10 Americans support the Right to Work principle, that no worker should be compelled to join a union or pay union dues to get or keep a job. Twenty-two states have already passed Right to Work protections for their workers.

Washington, DC (February 24, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation, which provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, submitted comments criticizing a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proposal to implement new rules governing the notification of employee rights. Foundation attorneys say that the rules are not authorized by the National Labor Relations Act and would unfairly benefit union organizers.

Under current law, employers can be required to post notices of workers’ rights only when a violation of labor law has been proven in an unfair labor practice case. The proposed rules, however, would require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never been found to have committed unfair labor practices.

Under the proposed rules, every private-sector employer in the country would have to inform workers about their rights to organize, support a union, and engage in union activities such as strikes. However, the proposed notice would not tell workers in states that allow agreements requiring union “membership” as a condition of employment that they have a right to resign at any time from a union and not pay union dues for political and other non-bargaining activities. The proposed notice also fails to inform workers in Right to Work states that they cannot be required to join or pay anything to a union to keep their jobs.

Union officials, on the other hand, are not required to post any notices under the proposed rules. In non-Right to Work states, workers do not have to be informed that an organizing campaign could result in the mandatory payment of union dues as a condition of employment. The proposed rules also fail to require union organizers to explain to workers exactly what signing means when presented with union authorization cards during controversial “card check” organizing drives.

The proposed rules are the result of a biased and ideologically-charged Labor Board, which prioritizes advancing union officials’ interests over providing truthful and accurate information to employees. The agency’s forced unionism tilt is on display for all to see.

“The proposed rule changes are just the latest example of the NLRB’s biased approach to labor law,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “If the NLRB was really interested in protecting workers, they’d inform them of the dangers of coercive ‘card check’ drives and publicize their rights, under law, to remove an unwanted union.”

Sacramento, CA (February 10, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Dennis McLeod is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reconsider his request for a secret ballot unionization election at the Thunder Valley Casino.

In the spring of 2010, UNITE HERE Local 49 union officials initiated a coercive “card check” organizing drive to unionize McLeod and his coworkers. Although union organizers claimed to have collected enough signed cards from employees to obtain monopoly bargaining privileges, the casino’s workforce expanded following unionization, raising questions about whether a hurried card check campaign actually reflected the views of a majority of employees.

Under the Foundation-won Dana decision, workers may collect signatures to request a secret ballot election during a 45 day window period following notice that their employer has recognized a union based on a card check organizing drive. The ruling is intended to counteract coercive practices frequently associated with union card check campaigns, which allow organizers to bully or mislead employees into signing cards that count as “votes” toward unionization.

On April 29, 2010, Thunder Valley Casino employees were notified of their rights under the Dana precedent. McLeod and several of his coworkers proceeded to collect signatures from casino employees to trigger a secret ballot unionization election.

Through a quirk of the calendar, the 44th and 45th day of the Dana window period fell on a weekend. Although McLeod faxed and mailed his request for a secret ballot election to the NLRB on the 44th day, the Board’s regional director originally found that his submission was “untimely.” Following an appeal, the regional director again declined to hold an election because McLeod allegedly failed to submit the accompanying signature petitions with his request for a secret ballot election, despite the fact that the petition and the signatures were already in the mail before the window period ended.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, McLeod is now appealing this ruling to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC.

“Workers should never be forced into a union’s forced dues-paying ranks without a secret ballot vote,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “UNITE HERE union bosses forced their way into this workplace through a notoriously unreliable card check scheme. The NLRB should respect the intent of workers and order a timely secret ballot election so that Thunder Valley employees have a chance to vote the union out.”

Washington, DC – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide, sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) protesting the agency’s decision to threaten lawsuits against state ballot amendments aimed at prohibiting ‘card check’ organizing drives but not threaten suits against state laws that aid unions.

The letter, signed by Foundation Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse, points out that this latest move reveals a troubling pattern of forced unionism favoritism at the NLRB, which is charged with overseeing private sector labor and employment law throughout the country.

LaJeunesse notes that in numerous other cases where federal statutes preempt state law, the current NLRB has failed to act if asserting federal prerogatives would mean undermining union officials’ special privileges.

For example, Foundation attorneys currently represent Carol Jean Badertscher, a nurse who was threatened with fines and jail time under California’s draconian ‘anti-strikebreaker’ law for crossing a union picket line. Although the NLRB’s then General Counsel acknowledged that the California law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, the Board declined to declare the anti-strikebreaker law preempted or order notice to California workers about their rights to continue working during a strike.

However, the Board recently threatened four high-profile lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah for enacting laws designed to prohibit recognition of unions without an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.

Those threats highlight a pattern of forced unionism favoritism that further tars the Board’s reputation for evenhandedness. The most notable example of this trend was the recess appointment of Craig Becker, a former SEIU lawyer, to serve on the Board. Despite the involvement of his former employer in several pending cases, Becker has refused to recuse himself and is now poised to issue rulings that could shape American labor law for decades.

“The Board’s selective interest in asserting federal prerogatives is just the latest example of this Administration’s obvious forced unionism bias,” said Foundation Legal Information Director Patrick Semmens. “The Obama NLRB rushed to intervene when it meant stopping state attempts to limit coercive card check organizing drives. But in cases where federal preemption would mean striking down state laws that push more workers into unions’ forced dues-paying ranks, the Board is conspicuously silent.”