Here’s an update on the case of Sean Beightol, a veteran Miami chemistry teacher denied access to private counsel at a school disciplinary hearing.

Although union members are allowed to consult with advisers from the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union during similar proceedings, school administrators prevented Beightol from bringing an adviser from his voluntary teacher association to the meeting, a clear-cut case of workplace discrimination against nonunion teachers.

Foundation attorneys responded by filing charges on Beightol’s behalf with the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission, which issued an official complaint last week against the union and the local Miami-Dade school district. The complaints against the union and the school district can be found here and here; the Employee Relations Commission will now investigate the matter to determine school and union officials’ culpability.

To paraphrase our press release on the charges, the discriminatory work rule Beightol challenged is nothing more than a tool to discourage teachers from leaving the union and enrolling in a voluntary teachers association.

A victory for Beightol would end this discriminatory practice and stop union officials from undermining Florida’s popular Right to Work law.

Jackson, MI (April 8, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four local workers have agreed to a settlement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 164 union after union officials obstructed their attempts to opt-out of certain union dues.

Michael Vetrovec, Robert Harris, Ken Low, and Larry Kunk are employed by Perfection Associates L.L.C. in Jackson, Michigan. All four workers objected to Teamster membership and attempted to opt-out of paying full union dues last summer.

Because Michigan lacks a Right to Work law, employees can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck guarantees the right of workers to opt-out of forced dues intended for purposes other than workplace bargaining, such as lobbying, political activism, and members-only activities.

Despite this precedent, Teamsters officials initially refused to stop collecting dues earmarked for non-bargaining activities from Vetrovec, Harris, Low and Kunk. Union officials also failed to provide all four workers with an independently audited breakdown of union expenditures, which is required by law to ensure that employees are not forced to pay for objectionable activities.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, the workers filed federal unfair labor practice charges last October with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead of contesting the charges, Teamsters officials recently agreed to a settlement that refunds dues collected for non-bargaining activities from all four employees since July 2009. The union also agreed to post public notices informing employees of their rights to resign from union membership and opt-out of dues unrelated to workplace bargaining.

“We’re pleased to hear that Teamsters bosses will refund money seized from four independent-minded workers who have no interest in subsidizing political and members-only union activities, but this type of abuse will continue as long as employees can be forced to pay union dues just to keep a job,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The only way to really protect workers is for Michigan to adopt a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary.”

Labor Board Announces Prosecution of SEIU Union Bosses for Illegal Union Membership Opt-Out Policy

Illegal union procedure forces nursing home workers to pay full union dues

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The full press release is available here.

Princeton, WV (April 6, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina has issued a federal complaint against a local union for maintaining an “annual objection” policy designed to force nursing home workers into full union dues payments against their will.

The complaint stems from multiple charges filed by six employees from the Princeton area of West Virginia against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199. The employees – Sherry French, Walter Coeburn, Tammy Tyree, Bruce Hoyle, Debra Fitzko, and Deborah Dunn – filed the series of charges with free legal assistance from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The six employees challenged the SEIU District 1199 hierarchy’s policy which violates Foundation-won precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), in which the Court held that union officials can not lawfully compel nonmembers to pay the part of union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. Foundation attorneys are currently challenging many union boss schemes similar to the SEIU District 1199 union bosses’ annual objection policy, often concocted by union brass to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights under Beck. Five NLRB administrative law judges have held such schemes unlawful.

The NLRB’s complaint challenges the SEIU District 1199 annual objection policy, but other meritorious charges remain pending, and the NLRB has indicated that further complaints will be issued unless the union hierarchy settles.

“The SEIU District 1199 union officials’ illegal behavior shows they’re just after forced union dues revenue,” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “This blatant disregard for the rights of the workers SEIU bosses claim to represent shows why West Virginia needs to pass a state Right to Work law making union dues payment completely voluntary.”

Today, the Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear Jeffrey Reed v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, a case brought by Foundation attorneys that challenged a discriminatory United Auto Workers (UAW) forced unionism policy.

In response to the Court’s failure to take up the case, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:

"It’s deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court will not address a discriminatory UAW policy that forces employees who object to union activities on religious grounds to pay more union dues than secular objectors or union members. The Right to Work Foundation will continue to work towards safeguarding the rights of all employees of faith to get or keep a job without compromising their deeply-held religious convictions.

"While we will continue to press this issue in the courts, the only sure way to end this type of injustice once and for all is by ending forced unionism and stripping union officials of their special powers to impose monopoly bargaining and forced dues on any employee."

FEC Confirms Postal Union Improperly Diverted Worker’s Dues to Union Political Action Committee

Despite finding, FEC dismisses complaint citing NPMHU officials’ claim that diversion of union dues was so-called “technical error”

Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).

In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.

The full press release is available here.

Washington, DC (April 5, 2010) – The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).

In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.

It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using “dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization.” NPMHU union bosses were also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person’s name and soliciting political contributions under false pretenses while failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.

Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union’s PAC, but then redirected the portion of funds not intended for union political activities back to membership expenses after the 2006 midterm elections, blaming it on a “technical error” and prompting the FEC to dismiss the charges.

“Unfortunately, the FEC failed to investigate whether this instance of political money laundering was part of a larger scheme afoot,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Even if the union officials’ dubious claims that it was a mistake are to be believed, in effect Mr. Wakeman was forced to give an interest-free loan to the union to use his dues for politics.”

“We will work to ensure that the FEC’s lack of action in this case does not embolden union bosses to concoct similar schemes to funnel union dues for politics as long as they ‘fix’ it later,” Semmens said.

Labor Board Slaps Grocery Union Bosses with Federal Complaint for Statewide Illegal Forced-Dues Scheme

Suspecting widespread abuse, Right to Work Foundation gears up legal aid program to assist any of the tens of thousands of employees affected

Phoenix, AZ (April 1, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix has issued a statewide complaint alleging that local union bosses and Fry’s Food Stores are illegally blocking independent-minded workers from stopping union dues payments.

The prosecution is the result of a four month long investigation of charges filed by Fry’s employees with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Employees from several Fry’s locations filed the federal charges challenging the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management, after union and company officials refused to honor the employees’ legal rights to revoke their dues deduction authorizations and continued to illegally seize union dues from their paychecks.

Upset by the UFCW Local 99 strike threat last November, the employees resigned from the union 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. Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law, no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union; and under federal labor law, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.

The Phoenix NLRB regional director found that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Fry’s locations are illegal because the dues deduction authorizations do not allow employees to revoke them during contract hiatus periods, as required by federal law.

Suspecting that the illegal dues deduction forms are used in all workplaces in Arizona where UFCW union bosses enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, Foundation attorneys are now offering free legal aid to all employees affected by the illegal UFCW dues deduction authorizations.

View the full press release and the list of UFCW Local 99 union organized employers in Arizona here.

Phoenix, AZ (April 1, 2010) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Phoenix has issued a statewide complaint alleging that local union bosses and Fry’s Food Stores are illegally blocking independent-minded workers from stopping union dues payments.

The prosecution is the result of a four month long investigation of charges filed by Fry’s employees with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Employees from several Fry’s locations filed the federal charges challenging the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry’s management, after union and company officials refused to honor the employees’ legal rights to revoke their dues deduction authorizations and continued to illegally seize union dues from their paychecks.

Upset by the UFCW Local 99 strike threat last November, the employees resigned from the union 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. Under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law, no worker can be required to join or pay any money to a union; and under federal labor law, employees can revoke their dues deduction authorizations once a contract terminates.

The Phoenix NLRB regional director found that the dues deduction authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all Fry’s locations are illegal because the dues deduction authorizations do not allow employees to revoke them during contract hiatus periods, as required by federal law.

Suspecting that the illegal dues deduction forms are used in all workplaces in Arizona where UFCW union bosses enjoy monopoly bargaining privileges, Foundation attorneys are now offering free legal aid to all employees affected by the illegal UFCW dues deduction authorizations.

“UFCW Local 99 bosses are likely violating the rights of tens of thousands of workers across the state of Arizona” said Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right to Work. “We intend to make sure that UFCW operatives play by the rules and stop extracting union dues from workers who, under Arizona’s popular Right to Work law, cannot be forced to pay union dues.”

With free legal assistance from the Foundation, 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 – filed the federal unfair labor practice charges that spurred the NLRB to investigate and issue a statewide complaint against UFCW Local 99 union bosses.

Note: Here is the list of UFCW organized employers in Arizona:

• Ace Parking – Phoenix
• Ace Parking – Tucson
• Albertson’s – Yuma
• ALSCO
• ARCO Services Company
• Arizona Center for Disability Law
• Arizona Sonora Desert Museum
• Calcot Compress Company
• Canteen (Raytheon)
• Canteen (Vendors)
• Canteen (Douglas)
• Community Legal Service
• Copper Queen Hospital
• Eurofresh
• Fry’s Food and Drug
• Fry’s Market Place
• Mission Foods
• Precept
• Robert B. Yacko, D.D.S., P.C.
• Safeway
• Smithfield
• Smith’s Food and Drug
• Southern Arizona Legal Aid
• Southwest Service Administrators
• Waste Management
  

Miami, FL (April 1, 2010) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Miami-Dade public school teacher has filed unfair labor practice charges challenging a discriminatory policy that prevents nonunion teachers from using representatives of their own choosing during school investigatory interviews.

Shawn Beightol, a veteran chemistry teacher at Michel Krop Sr. High School, was told to report to the Miami-Dade County Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to discuss a possible violation of the school’s email policy last October.

The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) union is the exclusive bargaining agent for the Miami-Dade School District. However, Beightol is a member of the Professional Educations Network of Florida (PENFL), a nonunion teachers association. Although Beightol brought a representative from the PENFL to the October hearing, school officials refused to allow his advisor to participate.

Beightol’s charges allege that the Miami-Dade School District and UTD union officials unfairly discriminate against nonunion teachers by denying them the opportunity to bring private counsel to professional hearings. Although UTD members are entitled to union counsel at investigatory conferences, the teachers’ contract – negotiated by union officials with the school district – forbids private attorneys. This practice effectively discourages teachers from leaving UTD or joining a voluntary teacher association instead of the union.

Florida law explicitly prohibits public employers from encouraging union membership through discriminatory workplace practices. Florida’s popular Right to Work Law also guarantees that no employee – public or private – can be coerced into joining a union or paying union dues.

“This policy is nothing more than an underhanded way to force reluctant teachers into union ranks,” said Patrick Semmens, legal information director for the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union bosses and complicit public school administrators use these discriminatory policies to bludgeon nonmember teachers and voluntary teacher associations for offering workplace alternatives to union monopoly bargaining.”

Beightol’s charges will now be investigated by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission in Tallahassee.