Honolulu, Hawaii (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Honolulu hotel employees have obtained a federally-mandated settlement from union officials with UNITE HERE! Local 5 and its national affiliate.

Brenda Lee Orr, a nonunion employee of Turtle Bay Resort, and Grant Suzuki, a nonunion employee of Hilton Hawaiian Beach Resort and Spa, filed federal charges against UNITE HERE! Local 5 last year, accusing union officials of illegally forcing nonunion employees to pay dues for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining. Suzuki also alleged that union officials failed to provide him with a federally-mandated breakdown of all union expenditures.

Because Hawaii does not have a Right to Work law, union officials can require nonmember employees to pay certain dues. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers may not be charged for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. The Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson also requires union officials to provide nonmember employees with an audited financial breakdown of union expenditures.

Following a preliminary investigation of the charges by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), union officials agreed to a settlement that refunds all dues unrelated to workplace bargaining taken from Orr and Suzuki since April 1, 2007. The settlement also requires union officials to post workplace notices informing workers of their rights to obtain an audit of union expenditures and to opt-out of certain union dues.

Foundation attorneys estimate that union officials must now return approximately 60% of all dues collected from Orr and Suzuki under the agreement.

“After a lengthy legal battle, Brenda Lee Orr and Grant Suzuki have finally reclaimed a significant portion of their hard-earned salaries from these scofflaw union bosses,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, many Hawaiian workers are still unaware of their rights, so union officials will continue to collect more forced dues dollars from unwilling employees. Ultimately, making dues payment strictly voluntary through passage of a Right to Work law is the best way to end these abuses.”

Michigan Worker Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Halt UAW Policy of Religious Discrimination

Right to Work attorneys challenge union officials’ violation of worker’s civil rights

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

(Read the full press release)

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined UAW officials violated federal law and issued Reed a “right to sue” letter, but the union hierarchy still refused to grant him a proper accommodation. Foundation litigators then filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and later appealed an unfavorable trial court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Foundation attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions which require Reed to be discharged or disciplined before he can challenge the UAW’s practice of forcing religious objectors to pay more than the forced dues paid by nonmembers who refrain from union membership for purely secular reasons. Foundation attorneys also point out in their brief that the nation’s federal circuit courts are equally divided on the issue.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its objectionable activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Hudson, OH (December 8, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a local worker has filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) Local 791 union. The charges allege that union officials intentionally discriminated against nonunion employees and failed to inform workers of their right to refrain from union membership.

Janet Barlow is a driver employed at First Student, whose contract with OAPSE gives union officials monopoly bargaining privileges in her workplace. Barlow alleges that union officials failed to notify employees of their rights to opt-out of union membership and the payment of full union dues.

Although workers can be forced to pay certain union dues as a condition of employment, full union membership is strictly voluntary. Moreover, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay dues earmarked for union activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, including member-only events and political lobbying.

OAPSE officials are also charged with intentionally discriminating against nonunion workers by circulating a notice stating that full union members do not have to pay dues until September 1, 2010, but nonmember employees must begin payments immediately. As a result of this threat, many employees joined the union who otherwise would not have.

Barlow’s charges seek an end to these discriminatory practices and the return of illegally-seized dues. Her allegations will now be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Barlow has also filed a formal deauthorization petition with the NLRB to remove the unpopular forced dues clause from the union’s contract.

“OAPSE bosses are forcing workers to pay union dues and using discriminatory practices to shove unwilling employees into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Although we hope to help Janet Barlow and her coworkers rectify these injustices, the best way to prevent further abuse of this nature would be for Ohio to pass a Right to Work law, making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

Federal Judge Upholds Injunction Against Teamster Union Bosses for Illegal Dues Scheme

Union officials failed to provide Pennsylvania Turnpike employees with an adequate breakdown of expenditures

Pittsburgh, PA (December 8, 2009) – A judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees, maintaining a permanent injunction against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ constitutional rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Exercising monopoly bargaining power over PTC employees, Local 250 officials may collect forced union dues from nonmembers – but only for expenses which union officials can prove are spent on collective bargaining.

Last year, the District Court levied a permanent injunction against Local 250 from seizing forced dues from nonmembers until it complies with the due-process and adequate disclosure requirements in the Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association line of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Charges must be verified by an independent auditor, and workers must have the opportunity to challenge the fee’s basis.

Read the rest of the Foundation’s press release.

Pittsburgh, PA (December 8, 2009) – A judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees, maintaining a permanent injunction against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ constitutional rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Exercising monopoly bargaining power over PTC employees, Local 250 officials may collect forced union dues from nonmembers – but only for expenses which union officials can prove are spent on collective bargaining.

Last year, the District Court levied a permanent injunction against Local 250 from seizing forced dues from nonmembers until it complies with the due-process and adequate disclosure requirements in the Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association line of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Charges must be verified by an independent auditor, and workers must have the opportunity to challenge the fee’s basis.

Union officials asked U.S. District Court Judge Nora Barry Fischer to lift the injunction, but Fischer found that the union still had not complied with all of the constitutional requirements under Hudson and Lehnert. Specifically, Fischer held that the union’s audit contained overly broad language concerning organizing, lobbying, and membership activities. Fischer also singled out Local 250’s charges to nonmembers for «professional fees,» including 100 percent of all legal expenses – meaning that union bosses were attempting to charge nonmembers the cost of defending its illegal actions against them.

«Pennsylvania should adopt a Right to Work law so independent-minded employees do not have to jump through legal hoop after legal hoop just to find out what they are being charged for,» said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «In the absence of such a protection, union bosses will continue to try to abuse employees’ rights in their lust for more money and power.»

Auburn, Washington (December 7, 2009) – In a desperate attempt to stall an employee vote at Alan Ritchey, Inc. which would rescind their forced dues privileges, Teamsters Local 117 union bosses filed unfair labor practice charges against the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, asking the federal labor board to block an election sought by the employees.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of National Right to Work, released the following statement regarding the Teamster Local 117 officials’ charges:

“Teamster Local 117 union bosses’ desperate attempt to abuse the process to strip employees of their rightful vote to remove the Teamsters’ forced union dues privileges is outright frivolous. Sensing a lack of support from the employees, Teamsters Local 117 union officials are using procedural gimmicks to keep their forced-dues gravy train going.

“National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have represented several independent-minded employees who have been targeted by Local 117 union brass during their ongoing campaign of retaliation and harassment against employees who exercise their legal rights to refrain from funding union political activities. It’s downright ludicrous to suggest that a legal foundation located on the other side of the country is somehow coercing the employees who contacted us on their own for help.

“Forced union dues is an outrageous violation of employees’ freedom of association, and it leads to an unaccountable union hierarchy. Union officials don’t want to have to earn the support of rank and file workers, instead preferring to possess the power to get employees fired for nonpayment of union dues.”

With help from Foundation attorneys, 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 – filed unfair labor practice charges against Local 117 last month.

The employees received a letter from union officials giving them only a few days to exercise their Foundation-won legal rights to refrain from paying union dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events – even though the employees had already exercised these rights – or be fired from their jobs. At about the same time, other Alan Ritchey employees also filed a petition seeking a deauthorization election which would void the forced union dues clause in the contract with their employer.

Teamsters Local Bosses Attempt to Prevent Employees From Canceling Their Forced Dues Privileges

Fearing a lack of support, union bosses abuse process to prevent employee vote

Auburn, Washington (December 7, 2009) – In a desperate attempt to stall an employee vote at Alan Ritchey, Inc. which would rescind their forced dues privileges, Teamsters Local 117 union bosses filed unfair labor practice charges against the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, asking the federal labor board to block an election sought by the employees.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of National Right to Work, released the following statement regarding the Teamster Local 117 officials’ charges:

“Teamster Local 117 union bosses’ desperate attempt to abuse the process to strip employees of their rightful vote to remove the Teamsters’ forced union dues privileges is outright frivolous. Sensing a lack of support from the employees, Teamsters Local 117 union officials are using procedural gimmicks to keep their forced-dues gravy train going.

“National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys have represented several independent-minded employees who have been targeted by Local 117 union brass during their ongoing campaign of retaliation and harassment against employees who exercise their legal rights to refrain from funding union political activities. It’s downright ludicrous to suggest that a legal foundation located on the other side of the country is somehow coercing the employees who contacted us on their own for help.

“Forced union dues is an outrageous violation of employees’ freedom of association, and it leads to an unaccountable union hierarchy. Union officials don’t want to have to earn the support of rank and file workers, instead preferring to possess the power to get employees fired for nonpayment of union dues.”

(Read the full press release)

Union Watchdog Files Second Disclosure Request to Investigate Obama Labor Department Stonewalling

Media report indicates Department of Labor officials are “in a tizzy and freaking out” over federal lawsuit

Washington, DC (December 2, 2009) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed new disclosure demands on the heels of its lawsuit to compel the Department of Labor (DOL) to release information related to high-ranking officials’ connections to powerful union lobbying interests.

A media report indicates DOL officials have deliberately ignored disclosure laws, and Right to Work attorneys are seeking internal DOL records backing up the report.

National Right to Work originally lodged a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last April citing concerns about Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who previously held a key leadership position at the Big Labor-front group “American Rights at Work,” and Deborah Greenfield, who was a lawyer for the AFL-CIO involved in a lawsuit challenging DOL union disclosure regulations that she now oversees as an administration appointee.

For the last seven months, the Obama Administration has stonewalled the Foundation’s FOIA request seeking disclosure of the high-ranking DOL officials’ contacts with union operatives. Late last month, Right to Work attorneys filed suit in federal court to force the Obama Administration to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Subsequent media coverage has revealed DOL officials apparently decided to ignore the Foundation’s FOIA request, but facing the lawsuit and negative publicity is now reconsidering. Additionally, one media report cited a high-placed source stating that panicked DOL officials “are in a tizzy and freaking out” because of the Foundation’s lawsuit.

(Read the full press release)

Washington, D.C. (December 2, 2009) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed new disclosure demands on the heels of its lawsuit to compel the Department of Labor (DOL) to release information related to high-ranking officials’ connections to powerful union lobbying interests.

A media report indicates DOL officials have deliberately ignored disclosure laws, and Right to Work attorneys are seeking internal DOL records backing up the report.

National Right to Work originally lodged a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last April citing concerns about Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who previously held a key leadership position at the Big Labor-front group “American Rights at Work,” and Deborah Greenfield, who was a lawyer for the AFL-CIO involved in a lawsuit challenging DOL union disclosure regulations that she now oversees as an administration appointee.

For the last seven months, the Obama Administration has stonewalled the Foundation’s FOIA request seeking disclosure of the high-ranking DOL officials’ contacts with union operatives. Late last month, Right to Work attorneys filed suit in federal court to force the Obama Administration to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Subsequent media coverage has revealed DOL officials apparently decided to ignore the Foundation’s FOIA request, but facing the lawsuit and negative publicity is now reconsidering. Additionally, one media report cited a high-placed source stating that panicked DOL officials “are in a tizzy and freaking out” because of the Foundation’s lawsuit.

Today, Foundation attorneys filed another FOIA request this time for the DOL’s search plan and interoffice communications – including emails, meeting minutes, notes, and other interoffice correspondence – relating to the initial FOIA request.

“President Obama’s widely-touted promise of unparalleled transparency has been met with unparalleled secrecy,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Department of Labor’s deliberate stonewalling is unsettling. It suggests the administration is hiding damaging information about whether Hilda Solis and Deborah Greenfield are coordinating their activities with pro-compulsory unionism extremists.”

“Giving Big Labor undue influence over the Department’s rule-making and administrative oversight is a slap in the face of America’s independent-minded workers. The public deserves to know about any collusion between this administration and Big Labor bosses.”