Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed briefs today with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), urging the federal labor board to uphold a landmark 2007 decision which gave new protections to workers swept into union ranks through the abusive card check organizing process.

In Dana Corporation, Foundation attorneys won new employee rights intended to counteract the employee intimidation and harassment waged by aggressive union operatives that frequently occurs during card check organizing campaigns. The Dana decision granted employees the ability to file a decertification petition for a secret ballot election to toss out union officials from their workplace within 45 days after an employer gives notice that it recognized a union as monopoly bargaining agent by card check.

At the request of union lawyers seeking to deny workers access to a secret ballot vote, the NLRB ruled in August to revisit Dana over the strenuous objections of dissenting members Peter Schaumber, whose term has since expired, and Brian Hayes.

In Lamons Gasket, now before the NLRB, Foundation attorneys are providing free legal aid to Mike Lopez, a worker who filed a decertification petition with the support of at least 30 percent of his fellow employees challenging the card check recognition of the United Steelworkers (USW) union as their monopoly bargaining agent. The decertification election occurred in August, but the ballots have been impounded pending the review of Dana.

Foundation attorneys filed a merit brief for Lopez and an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation. The latter cites the Foundation’s unparalleled experience representing employees victimized by coercive card check organizing drives. The two briefs argue that Dana elections are working as intended, providing workers the ability to remove an unwanted union from their workplaces.

Foundation attorneys have also renewed their request that Member Craig Becker recuse himself from the case because he co-authored a union brief in the original Dana case.

"Although no worker should ever be compelled to join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job, the secret ballot provides at least a limited protection to ensure that union recognition enjoys the uncoerced support of a majority of employees," explained Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

In addition to the Lamons Gasket briefs, Foundation attorneys also filed a brief in UGL-UNICCO Service Company, a case in which the NLRB is reconsidering the "successorship doctrine," which determines what opportunities workers have to remove a union after a company is sold or merged. In the brief filed today, Foundation staff attorneys argue that union monopoly bargaining privileges should not automatically be extended in such cases, and employees should be free to decertify a union when there are such drastic changes in their relationship with their employer.

Poll: Union Members Overwhelmingly Oppose Union Boss Political Spending on 2010 Midterm Elections

Despite DC union officials’ agenda, union membership think stimulus plan and healthcare bills were failures, and oppose keeping Pelosi as Speaker

Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – A nationwide poll of 760 union members from both the private and government sector conducted last week demonstrates a staggering disconnect between union members and the national union officials who claim to represent them. The scientific survey was conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz.

The poll asked various questions regarding their union leadership and the 2010 midterm elections. The poll found that 60 percent of union members oppose their union bosses’ political spending in the 2010 midterm elections, viewing it a wasteful use of union dues and treasuries to protect incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.

Despite Big Labor’s 2010 political spending blitz – led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses’ $87.5 million “incumbent protection program” – nearly 60 percent believe that a mostly even balance of power between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill is best for America and the same number would rather that money be spent working with employers to create new and better jobs. A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30 percent want her to remain Speaker.

In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59 percent of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so.

Half of union members view President Obama and the Democrat Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37 percent view it as a success. Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures. Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy; and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.

Read the entire release here.

View the complete poll results here.

Washington, DC (November 1, 2010) – A nationwide poll of 760 union members from both the private and government sector conducted last week demonstrates a staggering disconnect between union members and the national union officials who claim to represent them. The scientific survey was conducted October 26-28 by long time pollster Frank Luntz.

The poll asked various questions regarding their union leadership and the 2010 midterm elections. The poll found that 60 percent of union members oppose their union bosses’ political spending in the 2010 midterm elections, viewing it a wasteful use of union dues and treasuries to protect incumbent Democrat politicians in Washington, D.C.

Despite Big Labor’s 2010 political spending blitz – led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union bosses’ $87.5 million “incumbent protection program” – nearly 60 percent believe that a mostly even balance of power between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill is best for America and the same number would rather that money be spent working with employers to create new and better jobs. A majority of union members even believe that union boss political spending should be used to “throw the bums out” instead, and half support replacing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with someone else while only 30 percent want her to remain Speaker.

In light of Big Labor’s 2010 political spending spree, 59 percent of union membership would actually vote to replace their own “union leadership” if given a secret ballot election to do so.

Half of union members view President Obama and the Democrat Congress’s healthcare reform bill as a failure, while only 37 percent view it as a success. Majorities also view the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2008 corporate bailouts as failures. Overwhelming majorities oppose future government spending and debt to rejuvenate the economy; and two-thirds of union members instead trust entrepreneurs, small businesses, and employers to lead America to better job growth.

In regards to their own union representation, a plurality of union members disapprove of the job America’s “labor leaders” are doing and view their union hierarchies as less honest and principled than 50 years ago. A whopping 72 percent of union members think union bosses should be held more accountable to workers and 63 percent think union officials are overpaid. Sixty-six percent think union officers mostly look out for themselves instead of “the little guy.”

Eighty percent supported the Right to Work principle that union membership and dues payment should be voluntary and not required as a condition of employment. Nearly 90 percent of union employees surveyed favored more union hierarchy disclosure and accountability.

“As top union officials are pouring an estimated one billion dollars into re-electing Democrats into Congress, a large majority of union members actually oppose the union bosses’ political agenda” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “That’s why it comes to no surprise that union members would like to replace their own union leadership, and overwhelmingly support the Right to Work principle for all of America’s workers.”

To view the complete poll results, click here.

San Francisco, CA (October 27, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, six San Francisco-based Hilton employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the UNITE HERE Local 2 union for threatening them for not participating in a recent strike and failing to notify employees about their workplace rights.

Julio Lopez, Maria Mores, Armando Campos, Robert DelReal, Jorge Diaz Vega, and Nicholas Gonzales are all employed at the Union Square Hilton Hotel. Although UNITE HERE Local 2 is the monopoly bargaining agent for hotel employees, the contract between the union and the hotel lapsed over a year ago. Because the union lacks a contract, Hilton employees can no longer be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. However, none of the charging parties were made aware that they could leave the union and opt-out of further dues payments.

Not only did UNITE HERE officials fail to notify Hilton employees of these rights, but they threatened Lopez, Mores, Campos, DelReal, Diaz Vega, and Gonzales with disciplinary action for failing to participate in an April 2010 strike. When several employees attempted to resign from union membership this month, union officials ignored their requests and have continued to collect dues.

So-called union disciplinary hearings are frequently used by union officials to retaliate against independent-minded workers. In previous Foundation cases, union lawyers have attempted to collect fines as high as $30,000 from dissenting employees.

The employees’ charges, which will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seek the return of all illegally-confiscated union dues and a public notice of Hilton employees’ legal rights from UNITE HERE Local 2.

“UNITE HERE bosses kept workers in the dark to force them to pay exorbitant dues and participate in a union-instigated strike,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “While we hope the NLRB will crack down on these illegal practices, the best solution would be for California to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Federal Prosecution Against Grocery Union Bosses for Widespread Rights Abuses to Proceed as Class-Action

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme violated possibly thousands of workers’ rights

Phoenix, AZ (October 22, 2010) – A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry’s Food Stores workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a looming strike last year, will proceed as a “class action” and will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees from several Fry’s locations in Arizona filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last November, the employees resigned formal union membership and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – spurred the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were illegal because they do not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB’s Regional Director initiated a statewide prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses. However, an NLRB administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the union’s statewide records that would indicate how widespread the union’s practice of failing to honor Fry’s employees’ dues revocations really is. This week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C. overruled the judge’s decision and ordered the union to comply with the subpoena.

Read the entire release here.

Phoenix, AZ (October 22, 2010) – A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry’s Food Stores workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a looming strike last year, will proceed as a “class action” and will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees from several Fry’s locations in Arizona filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management after union and company officials continued to seize union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last November, the employees resigned formal union membership and revoked their dues deduction authorizations – used by union officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks – during a time in which the union did not have a contract at their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence – acting for other similarly situated employees – spurred the NLRB Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Arizona Fry’s Food Stores locations were illegal because they do not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB’s Regional Director initiated a statewide prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses. However, an NLRB administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the union’s statewide records that would indicate how widespread the union’s practice of failing to honor Fry’s employees’ dues revocations really is. This week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C. overruled the judge’s decision and ordered the union to comply with the subpoena.

“Thanks to the work done by this courageous group of independent-minded employees, UFCW Local 99 bosses are now staring at the consequences of violating the rights of possibly thousands of Fry’s Food Stores workers across the Grand Canyon State,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work.

“Foundation attorneys are prepared to assist workers whose rights may be violated in various UFCW-controlled retail food stores and processing plants, banks, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, and waste management locations across the state of Arizona,” added Semmens.

Local Union Bosses Face Federal Labor Charge for Illegally Taking Money from Workers’ Paychecks

Union officials’ illegal forced-dues scheme highlights need for Right to Work law

Detroit, MI (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Farmington Hills-based nursing home employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate.

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.

Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

Read the entire release here.

Detroit, MI (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Farmington Hills-based nursing home employee has filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate.

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.

Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.

Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

However, Smith later found out that SEIU Healthcare Michigan union bosses and Botsford Common Nursing Home do not have a union monopoly bargaining contract in place, and therefore, she is not forced to pay any union dues or fees at all. Under federal law, workers cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees when a union monopoly bargaining contract is not in effect at their workplace.

“SEIU Healthcare Michigan union bosses apparently 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. “No worker should be forced to subsidize the very scoundrels whose only goal is to seize forced union dues from their paychecks at all costs.”

“This case highlights why Michigan desperately needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.”

Grand Junction, CO (October 22, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a bus driver who was fired because his wife opposed unionization has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against First Student, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 455 union officials.

Clark Kelley, a mechanic employed by First Student for over 20 years, is married to Traci Kelley, a former First Student bus driver. Mrs. Kelley vocally opposed a Teamsters organizing campaign in late 2009, and subsequently filed unfair labor practice charges against Teamster officials for attempting to force her to join the union. Although Clark Kelley is also employed by First Student, he did not work in the same bargaining unit and was not a union member.

A month after she filed unfair labor practice charges, Traci Kelley and her husband were suspended from their jobs. On April 21, 2010 Clark Kelley was fired from First Student in retaliation for his wife’s refusal to join the Teamsters union and for the unfair labor practice charges she filed.

Although First Student claims that he was terminated for faulty maintenance records, Clark Kelley believes that this was a pretext for retaliation against his wife. Moreover, several other First Student employees believe that Kelley was terminated “to get to” his wife for opposing the Teamsters’ presence.

While Colorado workers can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, employees cannot be disciplined for opposing unionization or refusing to join a union. Employers are also prohibited from using disciplinary action to discourage other independent-minded workers from speaking out against union officials.

Clark Kelley’s charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“In a heavy-handed attempt to quash employee dissent, Teamster bosses had Clark Kelley fired because his wife took a stand against workplace intimidation,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be punished for speaking out on the job, and we hope the National Labor Relations Board will intervene promptly to ensure company and union officials are held accountable for their thuggish tactics.”

Bus Drivers Slam the Brakes on Teamster Union Boss Intimidation and Threats

Teamster bosses bullying independent-minded workers to sign self-disparaging letter just to exercise their constitutional rights

Long Island, NY (October 8, 2010) – Two Syosset-based bus drivers have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for refusing to recognize, without condition, their constitutional right to refrain from formal union membership and instead are intimidating independent-minded workers who exercise that right.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the two Acme Bus Corp. drivers filed the charges late last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Brooklyn.

Teamsters Local Union 1205 officials are failing to acknowledge without condition the workers’ rights to refrain from formal, full dues-paying union membership established under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck. Instead, Teamster Local 1205 union bosses are forcing nonmember employees to sign a self-disparaging letter characterizing themselves as “dues complainers.”

Read the entire release here.