Philadelphia, PA (May 21, 2010) – Eight public employees have filed a federal lawsuit against a local union and the Borough of Ephrata for illegally confiscating union dues payments from their paychecks without following federal requirements.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, providing the eight employees with free legal aid, filed the suit today in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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, are asking the court to protect their Right to Work Foundation-won rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The Court ruled in Abood that nonmember public employees can be forced to pay some union dues, but not the part used to pay for union politics and other union activities.

IBEW Local 1600 union officials are compelling the employees into paying a whopping 99.51 percent of full union membership dues.

The Supreme Court also ruled in the Foundation’s Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) victory that union officials must provide public workers with an independently-audited financial breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures. IBEW Local 1600 union officials have not provided such a breakdown.

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

“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. “To prevent these types of forced unionism abuses, Pennsylvania needs a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary.”

Delta Employees File Motion to Join Legal Challenge to Controversial Transportation Unionization Rule

Former union officials on National Mediation Board created new policy stacking the deck in favor of forced unionization of railway and airline employees

Washington, DC (May 20, 2010) – Acting for three flight attendants and two customer service representatives at Delta Air Lines, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn a dramatic rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

Airline employers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency tasked with administration of labor relations within the railroad and airline industries, attacking its controversial rule change that overturns 75 years of precedent. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over workers if the union “wins” an election, no matter how few eligible workers actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

Foundation attorneys argue that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in the class or craft.

Read the full release by clicking here.

Washington, DC (May 20, 2010) – Acting for three flight attendants and two customer service representatives at Delta Air Lines, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn a dramatic rule change on how a union is imposed on railway and airline industry workers.

Airline employers have filed a federal lawsuit against the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency tasked with administration of labor relations within the railroad and airline industries, attacking its controversial rule change that overturns 75 years of precedent. The new procedure stacks the deck in favor of unionization by granting a union monopoly bargaining power over workers if the union “wins” an election, no matter how few eligible workers actually vote. This means that a small bloc of workers could force union boss “representation” on the whole group rather than having a true majority of all workers deciding for themselves.

Foundation attorneys argue that the new rule is unconstitutional because it violates the workers’ rights of freedom of association and due process, especially when the union can only demonstrate support from a minority of workers in the class or craft.

The five Delta workers and similarly situated employees in the railway and airline industries could soon find themselves forced into fees-paying ranks against their will. There are ongoing unionization efforts at Delta by the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions.

Unlike private sector workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, nonmember employees in the railway and airline industries are not protected by the Right to Work laws in Georgia, where Delta is headquartered, and 21 other states. Furthermore, the rule change is especially troubling given the complicated bureaucratic hoops these workers must jump through to remove an unwanted union.

Foundation attorneys also argue that the NMB members who approved the rule, Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, should have recused themselves because of their prejudgment of the regulations. Hoglander and Puchala are former union officials with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) unions, respectively. Both unions are a major part of an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) union-led coalition that urged the NMB to discard its longstanding policy.

“This is a shameless payoff from the Obama Administration and two former union officials to their Big Labor associates,” said Patrick Semmens, National Right to Work Foundation legal information director. “If these regulations are upheld, transportation unions will become roach motels – a tiny minority of workers will be able to install the union, but it will be virtually impossible for a majority of employees to remove the unwanted union.”

Washington, DC (May 19, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Virginia workers have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition asks the court to review a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating a union decertification in Boykins, Virginia.

Shirley Mae Lewis and Henry Vaughan are both employed at a Narricot plant in Boykins. In August 2007, they initiated an effort to eject the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2316 union from their workplace. Although 64% of employees in the bargaining unit signed a petition against union officials, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) invalidated the decertification on the grounds that Lewis and Vaughan received “unlawful assistance” from their employer.

Narricot management merely gave Lewis and Vaughan factual information about the number of signatures they would have to collect to decertify the union and the proper wording to use in union decertification petitions. Company officials also indicated that signed petitions would have to be presented to management before they could withdraw recognition from the Carpenter union. Narricot did not actively encourage Lewis or Vaughan to organize against the union.

Although federal labor law permits employers to provide information to workers so long as they avoid inducements or threats of reprisal, the NLRB ruled that the information the company passed on to Lewis and Vaughan exceeded so-called “ministerial assistance.” The NLRB’s decision was later upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Foundation attorneys argue that employees should be permitted to receive accurate information about how to exercise their workplace rights. Without the information they received, Lewis and Vaughan might not have been able to get rid of the unwanted union.

“Despite overwhelming employee opposition to the Carpenter union, Narricot employees are still saddled with union bosses’ so-called ‘representation’,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Workers shouldn’t be punished for seeking information from their employer when attempting to eject an unwanted union, and employers shouldn’t be gagged from giving employees truthful information about their basic rights.”

Group Home Workers Force SEIU Bosses into Forced Union Dues Refund

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to challenge illegal union membership “opt-out” policy

Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.

The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).

In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.

Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.

Click here to read the whole release.

Princeton, WV (May 18, 2010) – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 union officials have agreed to a statewide settlement after six ResCare group home employees filed several unfair labor practice charges against them.

The employees, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, challenged the SEIU District 1199 union’s forced dues policy, which violated Foundation-won employee rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988).

In Beck, the Court held that union officials cannot lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining union boss activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. The employees also challenged the SEIU union officials’ practice of requiring employees to object to paying full union dues multiple times in order to exercise their rights under Beck.

Under the settlement, SEIU District 1199 union bosses will mail notices to all ResCare employees in West Virginia detailing the employees’ rights to object to full-dues-paying union membership. Further, the settlement requires SEIU District 1199 union bosses to allow ResCare employees in Mercer County, who were told by SEIU officials to join or be fired, to retroactively rescind their union membership and to receive refunds of their forced union dues.

Meanwhile, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina are scheduled to challenge the SEIU District 1199 union hierarchy’s “annual objection” policy before an NLRB administrative law judge in June. The SEIU District 1199 “annual objection” policy is clearly designed to force workers into making full union dues payments against their will.

Five NLRB administrative law judges around the country have held such union fee schemes unlawful.

“These six courageous workers have taken a stand for the rights of all ResCare employees in the Mountain State,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “Foundation attorneys will continue to pursue overturning the SEIU union bosses’ illegal membership policy, but West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary in order to end these kinds of compulsory unionism abuses.”

Pittsfield, IL (May 7, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four Pittsfield-based Help at Home employees have filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for threatening workers with termination if they refused to sign union authorization cards.

The cards, which the employer counted as “votes” in favor of unionization, were then used to force employees to accept SEIU officials as their exclusive bargaining agents at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.

Tina Evans and three of her Help at Home coworkers allege that employees were unlawfully compelled to attend a mass meeting with union organizers during work hours. Independent-minded workers who opposed unionization were also threatened with layoffs if they did not sign union authorization cards. Despite lacking the un-coerced support of a majority of employees, SEIU bosses have now made the payment of union dues a condition of employment for workers at the Pittsfield Help at Home office.

The union involved in this organizing scheme – SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana – is a chronic offender. Officials from the same union are facing Foundation-assisted charges in Danville, Illinois for illegally forcing other nonunion Help at Home employees to pay full union dues. The union was also named in a Foundation lawsuit on behalf of Illinois home care providers, who allege that union officials collaborated with Governor Pat Quinn to force them into the SEIU’s dues-paying ranks.

The Foundation’s charges seek immediate injunctive relief for Help at Home employees forced to pay SEIU dues. The charges will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

“Given the union’s history of workplace abuses, I can’t say we’re surprised by this latest scheme,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s unconscionable that union operatives would use threats to foist themselves on unwilling workers.”

“These tactics also highlight the dangers of pending ‘card check’ legislation, which would effectively mandate the coercive card check organizing system,” continued Semmens. “Without the privacy of the ballot booth during unionization elections, workers are regularly subjected to intimidation and harassment at the hands of aggressive union organizers.”

Chicago, IL (April 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of home-based personal care providers today filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their efforts to force Illinois personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

The suit stems from an executive order issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly after his election, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities were designated as “public employees” of the state of Illinois for the purpose of granting Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them.

Following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced unionism, Quinn signed an executive order last June that made an additional 4,500 home-based personal care providers susceptible to unwanted union boss bargaining and political “representation.” Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his recent closely-contested primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

The additional 4,500 home-care providers who are not yet under union control soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin in a mail-in vote. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to out-of-state SEIU and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the home-care providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics.

Pam Harris, Gordon Stiefel, and several other home-care providers — with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation — filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers unionized by Blagojevich and on behalf of home-care providers threatened by forced unionism as a result of Quinn’s executive order.

“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.”

The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association.

“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.”

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded (pdf) by clicking here.

New Obama Administration Contracting Policy "Nothing More Than Payback" to Big Labor

So-called "project labor agreements" discriminate against the 85 percent of construction workers who have opted against unionization

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

Click here to read more.

Washington, DC (April 13, 2010) – Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a policy initiated by President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13502, encouraging federal agencies to discriminate against nonunion workers and employers by adopting so-called “project labor agreements” (PLAs) on all federal construction projects costing the taxpayers over $25 million. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, released the following statement about the policy.

“The Obama Administration’s policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize. Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: to impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top-down.

“Rather than encouraging a competitive and open bidding process to ensure the American taxpayers get the best deal, the White House favors using federal contracts to reward Big Labor’s political machine. The policy is nothing more than payback for the billion dollars the union bosses spent electing Barack Obama and other forced-unionism proponents in the last election cycle.”

The National Right to Work Foundation filed formal comments with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council last summer opposing the proposed rule. The Foundation argued that the directive is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and that imposing discriminatory PLAs on federal contractors violates workers’ rights, passes along higher costs to taxpayers, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.

Some of the typical conditions demanded by unions in PLAs include monopoly bargaining, forced dues and fees for all “represented” workers, exclusive union hiring halls, and inflexible union work rules which strictly separate job functions into exclusive union jurisdictions based on craft.

One other particularly egregious feature of many PLAs requires contractors to make contributions to union pension plans. Nonunion employees will receive no retirement benefits for their work on a project because union pension plans have vesting periods that last longer than most projects. Nonmembers thus end up subsidizing the pensions of longtime union members.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, only 15 percent of construction workers in the United States are unionized.