‘Card Check-lite’ proposal would undermine the integrity of workplace elections and push more employees into Big Labor’s forced dues-paying ranks

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely . . .

Click here to read more. 

Washington, DC (June 23, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees across the country, has submitted comments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing any attempt to implement “electronic voting” in union organizing drives. The Foundation’s comments detail how electronic voting poses major risks to the integrity of unionization elections and threatens to reproduce the problems of coercive “card check” organizing drives.

In early June, the National Labor Relations Board requested information on the feasibility of electronic voting during unionization drives. Drawing on National Right to Work attorneys’ experience representing thousands of employees, Foundation Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse, Jr., responded by citing numerous concerns about the reliability of electronic ballots and the potential for intimidation or harassment of employees who submit ballots remotely.

The Foundation’s comments note that under an electronic voting scheme, it would be even easier for workers to be threatened, coerced or bribed by aggressive union organizers with access to portable electronic devices like laptops or cell phones. Compared to an NLRB-supervised unionization election, the potential for abuse during a union organizing drive conducted via electronic voting is clearly higher.

The Foundation’s comments also note that remote voting would make it difficult to verify the identity of workers submitting electronic ballots, opening the door to voter fraud and abuse. Moreover, electronically-submitted votes could be monitored or altered by hackers or system administrators, leaving workers vulnerable to retaliation and vote-stealing after they’ve submitted their ballots.

“Although their efforts to bypass the secret ballot through coercive card check legislation have stalled, Big Labor could be handed another tool to undermine workplace elections if the NLRB moves to adopt electronic voting,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Much like card check organizing, electronic voting leaves the door open to coercion and identity theft, and will be used by aggressive union organizers to impose forced unionism on more workers.”

Obama Recess Appointee Refuses to Recuse Himself in Twelve of Thirteen Cases Despite Clear Bias, Conflicts of Interest

New federal labor board member and former SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker thumbs his nose at much-touted Obama ethics policy

Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.

But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.

Click here to read the full release.

Washington, DC (June 9, 2010) – Craig Becker, President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), responded this week to 13 motions for his recusal filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in cases pending before the Board.

After President Obama installed Becker on the NLRB in late March, Foundation attorneys quickly filed recusal motions in all Foundation-supported cases due to Becker’s extreme level of hostility against the Foundation and its legal arguments for workers’ rights, even when the NLRB or United States Supreme Court have agreed and ruled against unions for their abusive practices. Additionally, some of the cases directly involve affiliates of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker’s employer up to the date of his recess appointment.

But Becker has only agreed to recuse himself in Dana Corp., one pending case in which Becker’s conflict of interest was so great even he could not ignore it. In that case, Foundation attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges against an employer and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for illegal pre-recognition bargaining. In exchange for active company assistance during a coercive card check organizing campaign, UAW union officials made explicit concessions as to workers’ wages and benefits. Becker himself coauthored a joint brief for the UAW and AFL-CIO union hierarchy in that case.

However, Becker will not recuse himself in a related line of cases in which union officials have devised a legal strategy to overturn a landmark 2007 NLRB decision won by Foundation attorneys also concerning the UAW’s card check campaign at Dana Corp. In that decision, the Board granted employees the ability to demand a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer recognizes a monopoly bargaining agent by card check. Becker denies having pre-judged the attempts to overturn that Dana decision despite a long career of advocating an extreme version of forced unionism that considers secret ballot elections “profoundly undemocratic” and despite having authored an amicus brief in that case opposing granting employees the opportunity to petition for decertification of unions recognized by card check.

Likewise, Becker has a long track record of personal bias towards the Foundation. Becker admits to having used “strong language” against the Foundation in published articles, but he ignores the fact that he once wrote that the Foundation only “purports to represent employees” even though it is patently obvious that Foundation staff attorneys have represented employees in hundreds of federal court and NLRB cases. Becker even has blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for having a “virtual obsession” with Foundation-assisted cases and criticized the NLRB’s General Counsel for putting cases like Dana before the Board.

Finally, Becker has announced a weak standard for recusal in cases involving SEIU affiliates. He ignores the financial dependence of the SEIU International, his former employer, on local affiliates and refuses to adopt the more stringent federal judge standard for recusal used by current NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman in cases concerning affiliates of the Teamster union, her former employer before being installed on the Board by President Bill Clinton.

“By announcing his weak recusal standards, Craig Becker has made a mockery of the much-touted Obama ethics pledge,” explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

“He has pre-judged the secret ballot, and he will now decide a case that could take away from workers the limited ability to use the secret ballot to get rid of an unwanted union foisted on them by coercive card check schemes. He has helped orchestrate the legal strategy for SEIU affiliates across the country, but he has only found fit to recuse himself in one case so far,” continued Mix. “Craig Becker’s recusal standards would be comical if the livelihoods of hardworking Americans were not at stake.”

Minneapolis, MN (June 09, 2010) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a legal aid organization that assists employees nationwide, is announcing an offer of free legal assistance to any Minneapolis nurses who do not wish to participate in an impending union-instigated strike.

According to recent press reports, the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union has decided to initiate a strike against 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities area. Some 4000 nurses either voted against or did not vote at all when asked to walk out on their patients.

Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President and Legal Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement:

“Given the results of this election, many Minneapolis nurses may wish to work during the impending strike to ensure patients receive medical attention. Nurses who want to continue working must be made aware of their workplace rights, including the right to resign from union membership and not participate in a union-instigated strike. A more detailed description of every nurse’s legal rights can be found on the Foundation’s website at https://www.nrtw.org/a/a_7_p.htm

“Foundation attorneys are ready to advise Twin Cities nurses about their workplace rights. We are also prepared to provide free legal assistance to any nurses who are subjected to union harassment or retaliation for working during this or any subsequent strike initiated by MNA officials. You can call the Foundation toll free at 800-336-3600 or request free legal assistance via email at legal@nrtw.org.

“The National Right to Work Foundation is committed to helping nurses who wish to continue working rather than participate in a union-instigated strike,” continued LaJeunesse. «Nurses must assert their legal rights to ensure they aren’t subjected to draconian internal union discipline for choosing to remain on the job, and Foundation staff attorneys stand ready to assist them.»

Under Supreme Court precedent and federal law:

• Workers have the right to resign from union membership at any time.

• Workers have the right to go to work even if the union is on strike. If a worker chooses to work during a strike, he or she must first resign from union membership to avoid union disciplinary action or fines.

• Workers have the right to sign a decertification petition to hold a secret ballot election to eject union officials from their workplace.

Federal Labor Board Announces Prosecution of Local Teamster Union Bosses For Threats Against Workers

Teamster union officials illegally told employees who refused to toe the union line that they would be fired

Seattle, WA (June 3, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has filed a federal complaint against local Teamster union officials for intimidating employees who exercised their limited legal rights to refrain from full dues paying union membership as a condition of employment.

The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center facility in Auburn – against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses.

With help from the National Right to Work Foundation, May and Allen filed charges after certain employees received a letter from union officials threatening them with job loss if they did not within three days join the union or declare again their nonmember status.

Click here to read the whole release.

Seattle, WA (June 3, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Seattle has filed a federal complaint against local Teamster union officials for intimidating employees who exercised their limited legal rights to refrain from full dues paying union membership as a condition of employment.

The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Alan Ritchey, Inc. employees Gayle May and Patricia Allen – acting for dozens of other similarly-situated employees of the mail transportation equipment repair and service center facility in Auburn – against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses.

With help from the National Right to Work Foundation, May and Allen filed charges after certain employees received a letter from union officials threatening them with job loss if they did not within three days join the union or declare again their nonmember status.

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Court held that workers who refrain from formal union membership have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

At about the same time, other Alan Ritchey employees filed a petition seeking a deauthorization election which would strip union officials of their forced dues powers.

Fearing lack of support, Teamsters Local 117 union lawyers filed charges against the National Right to Work Foundation in a desperate attempt to stall the employee vote that would have rescinded their forced dues privileges, but the NLRB dismissed the union bosses’ unwarranted and frivolous charges.

“Independent-minded employees should not be forced to subsidize Teamsters Local 117 union thugs who threaten them with firings for exercising their rights,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “That is why Washington needs a state Right to Work law protecting workers from union boss intimidation and abuse.”

The NLRB’s complaint against Teamsters Local 117 union bosses will be heard before an administrative law judge in the Jackson Federal Building in Seattle on August 3.

Houston, TX (June 03, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a formal complaint against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet Healthcare Corporation (THC) for illegally negotiating contractual provisions before the union received majority support from Tenet employees. The complaint was prompted by unfair labor practice charges filed by several nurses at the Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center with the help of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

According to the NLRB’s complaint, Tenet Corporation and union officials agreed to a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) before the CNA’s presence was put to a vote by Cypress Fairbanks nurses. Under the terms of the secret agreement, Tenet and CNA officials committed to mandatory third-party arbitration if they could not agree to a contract within 90 days.

Federal labor law prohibits company and union officials from negotiating a contract until a union receives majority support from the company’s employees. This requirement is intended to prevent union officials from undercutting workers’ rights or negotiating unfavorable wages and working conditions in return for organizing assistance from an employer. At Cypress Fairbanks, CNA officials agreed to the EPA – including the binding arbitration provisions – with Tenet Corporation before they received the consent of Cypress Fairbanks nurses to negotiate on their behalf.

The CNA’s organizing drive at Cypress Fairbanks was also marred by several provisions in the EPA designed to quash anti-union dissent. Tenet managers were forbidden from truthfully answering hospital employees’ questions about unionization, and employees who opposed a union presence were prevented from using company facilities to express their views. CNA organizers, on the other hand, were given wide-ranging access to company grounds to facilitate unionization, as well as a list of employees’ home addresses. Tenet settled earlier Foundation-supported charges by granting employees opposed to unionization equal access to its facilities.

The NLRB’s complaint will be heard by an administrative law judge.

“CNA operatives foisted themselves on Cypress Fairbanks nurses through a backroom deal designed to impose unionization,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “It is telling that these union bosses are so intent on forcing themselves into nurses’ workplaces that they were willing to violate the rights of the very employees they claim to represent.”

Hudson, OH (May 27, 2010) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Janet Barlow and two of her First Student coworkers have forced Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) Local 791 union officials to settle unfair labor practice charges. The agreement, which was originally proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), requires union officials to post notices informing First Student employees of their workplace rights and to allow nonunion workers to opt out of all union dues.

Because Ohio lacks a Right to Work law, employees throughout the state can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment. After OAPSE officials obstructed Barlow’s attempt to assert her constitutional right not to pay union dues for politics, however, Barlow initiated a so-called deauthorization drive to strip union officials of their powers to collect mandatory dues from First Student employees.

In February 2010, Barlow and her coworkers voted overwhelmingly to reject the forced-dues clause in OAPSE’s contract, allowing workers to opt-out of union dues at any time. Despite this result, OAPSE officials refused to allow nonunion workers to revoke their dues authorization forms, claiming that the employees’ actions were “untimely.”

First Student employees Jack Hurst and Dennis McConnaughey responded by filing additional unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. Instead of contesting these charges, OAPSE officials agreed to a settlement brokered by the NLRB that requires union officials to allow any employee to stop paying union dues and revoke their dues authorization forms. The settlement also requires the union to post public notices informing First Student employees of their workplace rights.

“Revoking a union’s forced-dues privileges is an uphill battle to begin with, but even after they lost the election, scofflaw OAPSE bosses refused to acknowledge workers’ rights to stop paying union dues,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees shouldn’t have to jump through this many legal hoops just to protect their hard-earned paychecks, which is why Ohio should make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary by adopting a Right to Work law.”

Lansing, MI (May 25, 2010) – Robert Sherman, a Dean Transportation employee, recently filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Dean Transportation Employee Union (DTEU) with the help of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The charges state that DTEU officials failed to provide Sherman with accurate information about his workplace rights and threatened to have him fired for refusing to pay full union dues.

Although Sherman and several of his coworkers are not union members, the DTEU is the monopoly bargaining agent for everyone employed at Dean Transportation. Because Michigan lacks a Right to Work law, Dean employees are obligated to pay union dues as a condition of their employment.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, nonunion workers can only be forced to pay dues related to workplace negotiations. Nonunion employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees for the purposes of lobbying, political activism, or members-only activities. Federal law also requires union officials to provide an independently-audited breakdown of union expenditures to help nonunion employees determine which activities they can be forced to pay for.

Despite this precedent, DTEU officials failed to provide Sherman and other employees with information about union expenditures or their right to opt-out of certain union dues.
In late April, DTEU officials sent Sherman and other nonunion employees a letter that threatened to have them fired if they refused to pay union dues. In the face of threats and union obstruction, Sherman still attempted to assert his Beck rights, but DTEU officials refused to provide him with any information about union expenses. DTEU officials told Sherman that he did not receive information about his workplace rights because he expressed “anti-union views” and did not attend union meetings.

Sherman’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“Instead of persuading workers to join of their own free will, union bosses relied on threats and coercion to force Robert Sherman and other independent-minded employees into their forced dues-paying ranks,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “This incident offers yet more evidence that Michigan desperately needs a Right to Work law, which would curb union abuse by making membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”