High Point, North Carolina (March 10, 2005) – Facing prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), United Auto Workers (UAW) union and Freightliner officials today agreed to cancel outright a company-wide sweetheart deal in which union officials had unlawfully bargained to limit workers’ wage demands and made other major concessions in exchange for Freightliner’s active assistance in coercing workers to unionize.

Based on evidence provided by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for Thomas Built Bus employee Jeff Ward, the NLRB’s General Counsel found that Freightliner officials at Thomas Built provided unlawful assistance to the union and held unlawful “captive audience” speeches jointly with union officials to coerce employees to sign union authorization cards that were treated as “votes” in favor of unionization.

Even more significantly, the General Counsel issued an unfair labor practice complaint challenging a secret agreement between Freightliner and the UAW union titled “Agreement on Preconditions to a Card Check Procedure” as constituting unlawful “premature bargaining” over substantive terms and conditions of employment before the union had achieved majority support among the employees.

The unlawful agreement spelled out what provisions would be contained in future collective bargaining agreements and would ensure a compliant company union that would not aggressively advocate for the employees.

The new settlement reached today came after Ward objected to an earlier settlement proposal in which UAW officials had agreed not to act as the employees’ bargaining representative, but were allowed to use the coercive arrangement at other Freightliner facilities.

Like the previous proposed settlement, the new settlement cancels the union’s recognition at Thomas Built and stipulates that it cannot act as the employees’ representative unless it wins uncoerced majority support through a secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

“Jeff Ward’s principled stance in the face of a shameless UAW hierarchy has won relief for countless thousands of Freightliner employees,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “The UAW hierarchy initially tried to cut its losses at Thomas Built in the hopes of keeping their illegal agreement alive at other Freightliner facilities. They have now been forced to cease and desist company wide.”

“The sweetheart deal shows how eager union officials are to sell out the employees’ interests simply to get more union dues paying members.”

Bowing to pressure brought by UAW union operatives, Freightliner-Daimler Chrysler signed a so-called “neutrality agreement” that prohibited the traditional and less-abusive secret ballot election process. The company instead agreed to recognize the union on the basis of a majority of employees signing union authorization cards. Under the agreement, union organizers were given access to company facilities to browbeat workers into signing the cards.

Sacramento, CA (March 2, 2005) – National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed urgent formal comments with the California Public Employees Relations Board (PERB), calling on them to reject union lawyer’s arguments that would gut current regulations intended to protect employee rights against compulsory union dues.

The process originated when California Teachers Association (CTA) union officials, with the endorsement of numerous other powerful unions, suddenly proposed that the PERB eliminate most regulations that clearly define employees’ few remaining rights against compulsory union abuse.

The regulations were enacted by PERB in the 1980s to uphold the rights of teachers recognized by the Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, a case won by Foundation attorneys. CTA union officials in their “revisions” proposed to completely gut sections that require union officials to inform teachers of their Hudson due process rights to financial disclosure and to give notice of the right to object to union dues spent for non-collective bargaining activities, such as politics.

“Union officials want to eliminate access to the few constitutional protections teachers have in California against compulsory unionism abuse,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Rather than looking after the rights of the teachers they supposedly represent, union officials are simply trying to push through self-serving regulations.”

In their formal comments, Foundation attorneys point out that gutting the PERB regulations would “leave employees in the dark” about how to challenge union officials’ claims. One of the changes would force employees to first use their union’s stacked internal procedures to challenge the amount of the fees, a process that is heavily slanted to favor the union officials’ demand for higher dues. The changes would also eliminate compliance procedures which make violating agency fee regulations an unfair labor practice, and delete provisions that mandate chargeable fees be calculated by an independent audit of union expenditures.

Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as articulated in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, union officials must provide audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures made from forced union dues seized from teachers who have chosen to refrain from union membership.

PERB officials have scheduled a hearing about the proposed regulations for March 3, 2005 in Sacramento.

Phoenix, AZ (February 28, 2005) — National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed arguments in the Arizona Court of Appeals opposing a union attack on Arizona’s Right to Work law.

The case originated in 2001 during contract negotiations between the City and officials of the AFL-CIO, Local 2384. Union officials wanted to force city employees to pay forced union fees equivalent to nearly 80% of full union dues.

When City officials refused to negotiate these “fees” on the grounds that they violated Arizona’s Constitution and Right to Work statutes, the union filed a complaint with the Phoenix Employee Relations Board (PERB). The case is now with the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief on Friday, supporting the City’s position that any form of forced dues violates state law. The Grand Canyon state’s highly popular Right to Work law protects all public employees and virtually all private-sector employees from being forced to join or support a union as a condition of employment.

The amicus brief points out that any forced dues, even if the amount is less than full membership dues, is a violation state law and the state constitution because it forces employees to support an unwanted union.

“Officials at the AFL-CIO are simply trying to sneak their way around state laws and the state constitution,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “They are looking for a ‘back door’ that will allow them to get a free ride on the backs of employees, instead going out and earning the voluntary support of rank-and-file workers.”

Arizona’s Right to Work law was enacted over 50 years ago and is so firmly a part of Arizona’s culture that it is part of the state’s constitution. In the unlikely event that union officials were to be victorious, it would effectively void not just the Right to Work law, but a constitutional provision as well.

High Point, North Carolina (February 25, 2005) – Facing intense employee opposition and pending unfair labor practice charges, United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials have agreed to pull up stakes at the massive Thomas Built Bus facility after having obtained recognition through the coercive “card check” process.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped Thomas Built worker Jeff Ward file unfair labor practice charges early last year that led to issuance of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint against the company and union. The complaint alleged unlawful coercion during a “card check” drive and unlawful premature bargaining when a majority of employees had not yet chosen to unionize.

Although union and company officials are eager to sign a settlement agreement stipulating that UAW disclaims representation power over employees at the Thomas Built Bus facility, Ward is objecting to the settlement. He is asking the NLRB to void the entire “neutrality” or “card check” agreement negotiated by parent company Freightliner.

The UAW union’s controversial recognition as the monopoly representative of the facility’s workers has been in dispute since last year. NLRB prosecutors, based in Winston-Salem, agreed with employees’ contentions that union and company officials jointly conducted unlawful mandatory pro-union “captive audience speeches” to coerce the plant’s workers to sign union recognition cards. They also found that the “card check” agreement involved unlawful premature bargaining over substantive terms of employment.

“This victory is an encouraging step towards holding union officials across the country accountable for trampling workers’ rights under abusive ‘card check’ schemes,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

“But the UAW hierarchy is only cutting its losses at Thomas Built in the hopes of keeping their illegal ‘neutrality’ and ‘card check’ agreement alive so that they can continue to coerce workers at other Freightliner facilities into union ranks.”

Bowing to pressure brought by UAW union operatives, Freightliner-Daimler Chrysler signed the so-called “neutrality agreement” that includes a prohibition of the traditional and less-abusive secret ballot election process. The company instead agreed to recognize the union on the basis of a majority of employees signing union authorization cards. Under the agreement, union organizers were given full access to employees’ private personal information (including home addresses) and access to company facilities to browbeat workers into signing the cards.

Fairfield, Calif. (February 22, 2005) – A local employee of Anheuser Busch has filed a fourth round of federal charges against a recalcitrant Teamsters union Local for again violating the terms of a settlement agreement by failing to provide an audited statement detailing how workers’ forced union dues are spent.

Catherine Anderson, a part-time employee at Anheuser Busch’s Fairfield facility, filed the unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Teamsters union local 896 officials have repeatedly committed unfair labor practices and have reneged on settlement agreements.

Union officials recently provided workers with a financial “statement” consisting of pages 10-13 of a larger report on the union’s expenditures. These fragments are a “schedule” of expenses claiming an unsubstantiated 96.06% of union dues money was spent on “collective bargaining” costs. This “schedule” does not provide any financial disclosure to justify the affiliation fees with the Teamsters International union and two Teamsters International union councils. Teamsters officials also continue to claim that 100% of union staff salary and overhead costs are chargeable to nonmembers, even though the disclosure shows resources were spent on non-chargeable activities. Anderson’s complaint challenges both claims.

As a result of earlier federal charges filed by Anderson and a co-worker in July 2003, September 2004, and October 2004, Teamsters union local 896 officials settled the cases with a requirement that they properly inform workers of their right to refrain from financially supporting the union’s political and ideological causes. Teamsters officials had also agreed to cease illegal threats to have workers fired for refusal to pay excessive initiation fees and agreed to provide workers refraining from formal union membership “a precise and accurate statement” about the calculation of the forced union dues they could be legally compelled to pay.

“This Teamsters union hierarchy wants workers simply to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The repeated attempts by union officials to run roughshod over workers’ rights show the inevitable greed and corruption that flow from forced unionism.”

The actions of Teamsters union officials violated worker protections recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Communications Workers v. Beck, a case argued and won by Foundation attorneys. Under the Beck ruling, workers may not be compelled to pay dues beyond the union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and they are entitled to an independent audit of union expenditures before any forced dues or fees are seized. Union officials also violated Penrod v. NLRB, which requires local union officials to provide financial disclosure for affiliated unions.

Old Saybrook, Connecticut (February 15, 2005) – Communications Workers of America (CWA) local 1298 officials have agreed to drop their illegal attempts to seize the wages of a local nonunion employee who continued to go to his job during a strike.

The agreement settles an unfair labor practice case filed at the Hartford-based National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) office by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys on behalf of Michael Beda, an employee of SBC Communications in Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

On April 5, 2004, Beda sent a letter to CWA union officials revoking his formal union membership. By resigning from formal union membership, non-union employees such as Beda are not subject to union rules and internal union discipline.

In May 2004, union officials ordered a strike at SBC Communications. Beda, not bound by union membership rules, continued going to work during the four day work stoppage. Beda later received a letter from CWA union officials stating that they were filing internal charges against him, and that he faced surrendering his wages earned during the strike despite the fact he was not a union member. Beda then filed the unfair labor practice charges.

In the settlement agreement, CWA union officials agree to rescind portions of their bylaws restricting employees’ right to resign their union membership, and retroactively recognize all resignations submitted by other workers to union officials since April 8, 2004.

“CWA union officials tried to make an example of Michael Beda just for going to work and doing his job,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “How dare they try to abscond his wages simply because he honored his commitments to his employer.”

The action of the union hierarchy clearly violated rights recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. Textile Workers and Pattern Makers v. NLRB. Under Textile Workers, it is an unfair labor practice for a union to fine employees who had been union members in good standing but who resigned during a lawful strike and thereafter returned to work during that strike. Under Pattern Makers and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials are obligated to honor employees’ resignations from formal union membership.

“This union hierarchy’s disdain for workers’ freedom and economic security shows that, contrary to their claims, they do not have employees’ best interests at heart,” said Gleason.

Copyright 2005 Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Inc.
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE (Massachusetts)

UAW ousted at Saint-Gobain;
Workers vote 350-309 to decertify union at Greendale plant

Bob Kievra; TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

WORCESTER – Workers at Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc. yesterday voted to decertify the United Auto Workers union, rejecting the union as their bargaining agent after a tumultuous 3-1/2-year tenure that featured a strike, unfair labor practice charges and a stalemate over an initial contract.

Voting to decertify UAW Region 9A were 350 employees; voting to retain union representation were 309 employees. There were 715 employees eligible to vote. Nine ballots were challenged and one was voided.

The UAW bucked a 100-year tradition in August 2001 when, in a 406-386 vote, the union mounted a successful organizing drive that drew on widespread discontent with management at the sprawling Greendale manufacturing complex.

But two groups of employees and the company mounted decertification efforts in recent years, citing the closeness of the initial election and a lack of progress toward a first contract.

Union officials last night said they were evaluating their options and would decide next week whether to file objections. Election objections must be submitted by Friday to the National Labor Relations Board.

Robert L. Madore, assistant director of UAW Region 9A, said he was disappointed, but had no regrets about the union’s negotiating tactics, an eight-day strike in 2003, or the decision to cease filing objections that would have delayed the election.

Saint-Gobain and decertification proponents succeeded, in part, because they raised the possibility of layoffs and plant closings, a powerful weapon that played on the economic hopes and fears of abrasives workers, he said.

«The workers were intimidated and coerced and threatened. We’re evaluating our options, but those types of threats can be grounds to file objections,» Mr. Madore said while sipping coffee at a West Boylston Street Dunkin’ Donuts.

Employees who lobbied for decertification were pleased with the outcome, but said healing the pro- and anti-union factions will be difficult. Top management at Saint-Gobain must address some of the discontent that first gave rise to the union effort, they said.

«We overcame a lot of roadblocks,» said decertification proponent William Damato Jr., an 18-year employee. «I’m glad we succeeded, but I’m not going to do this again. I hope management takes notice, takes actions and fixes some things.»

Saint-Gobain came to Worcester in 1990 when it bought the former Norton Co., which had a long nonunion tradition. Saint-Gobain had easily fended off four previous efforts prior to the UAW victory.

The UAW and Saint-Gobain never enjoyed good relations, sparring with one another over proposed benefit changes, the pace of negotiations, and what role politicians and other civic officials should play in brokering an initial contract.

Saint-Gobain lobbied for decertification in recent weeks and officials said last night they were pleased to put an end to the «turmoil throughout our operations caused by the union.» The union represented about 45 percent of the total work force at Saint-Gobain’s Greendale operations.

While happy that the union was decertified, Saint-Gobain executives struck a conciliatory tone, acknowledging that mistakes had been made, errors that may have fostered union organizing efforts.

«I’m confident that there’s enough people in this organization who want to make this place work and succeed,» said Stephen A. Stockman, vice president of bonded abrasives in North America and site manager of Greendale operations. «It’s going to take time. Some healing will be needed, but I think everyone is interested in the long-term success of Saint-Gobain in Worcester.»

The union’s inability to deliver on many of its promises worked against it, said Mr. Stockman. He said the union, in some instances, negotiated contract provisions that gave workers less attractive benefits than they had prior to the union.

«The difference in the election was really what the union did not accomplish,» he said.

Mr. Stockman came to Greendale in January 2001 and said he was attempting to open up lines of communication in the months prior to the August 2001 vote. Those efforts were mothballed once the union was organized, but will begin anew over the next few weeks, he said.

Decertification proponents enlisted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a nonprofit group critical of compulsory union dues. Last night, those who lobbied for decertification said they hope to form a new, nonthreatening atmosphere with management.

«We would like the opportunity to mend the wounds caused by the UAW,» said James W. Mitchell, a 26-year veteran of Saint-Gobain who filed a decertification petition in September 2004. «We hold no grudges and would like the opportunity to become a unified company again.»

Mr. Mitchell’s petition was the second of three decertification petitions. Wayne W. Gregoire filed the first petition in 2003, and Saint-Gobain sought decertification in October 2004.

Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gregoire and others operated a pro-decertification employees group known as the Grass Roots Coalition Against the Union. Members of the group noted that Saint-Gobain is a large, multinational company that could easily shift operations to other parts of the world.

Mr. Madore said the coalition acted as «agents of the company» by mouthing doom-and-gloom assertions that federal labor laws precluded Saint-Gobain from uttering. Saint-Gobain and the decertification proponents have repeatedly said they operated independent of one another.

«We’re not sorry we came to Worcester,» Mr. Madore said. «We’re proud of what we’ve done. But this was an undemocratic process because the coalition was really working on behalf of the company.»

Gary N. Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University, said yesterday’s vote is a dramatic reversal from 2001, when the UAW’s success made national headlines. The UAW had every right to be proud in 2001 because unionizing manufacturing workers is a difficult task, Mr. Chaison said. But having it fall apart less than four years later is also significant, he said.

«They may have pushed too hard and too fast instead of just getting an agreement and establishing a relationship,» he said.

In the end, workers on both sides of the issue may get what they want, because Saint-Gobain will treat the union as a shot across the bow, he said. Workers have shown their dissatisfaction with Saint-Gobain in a strong, impressive manner, he said.

«Saint-Gobain is probably saying to themselves, ‘How can we avoid this from happening again?'» Mr. Chaison said. «In that respect, the workers may come out ahead in the end.»

Business Reporter Bob Kievra can be reached at bkievra@telegram.com.

Denver, Colo. (January 26, 2005) – Qwest Communications (Qwest) announced late yesterday that it and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union will drop their recent attempt to force mandatory union affiliation on approximately 1,000 Qwest employees nationwide.

The announcement comes after attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation helped roughly a dozen Qwest employees file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposing their forced unionization.

In October 2004, Qwest unlawfully recognized the CWA union as the monopoly bargaining representative of Qwest’s National Network Service employees simply by “accreting” them into a previously existing unionized bargaining unit. Foundation attorneys aided National Network Service workers from across the country in filing unfair labor practice charges in December 2004, citing that these workers had historically been excluded from the bargaining unit, and that union officials had never proven that the union enjoyed a majority of support among those workers as required by law.

Despite these facts, Qwest ceded CWA union officials monopoly bargaining power over the terms and conditions of employment of National Network Service workers. And, Qwest also gave them authorization to seize forced union dues from the paychecks of workers in states that do not have Right to Work laws. A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. So far, 22 states have enacted such protections.

The workers also charged their employer and the union with unlawfully imposing a wage cut on them as a result of the CWA union’s unlawful recognition.

“No one should be forced to join or pay dues to a union, especially when union officials abuse that government-granted special privilege,” stated Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “While this is an encouraging victory for Qwest workers, it’s an outrage that their employer conspired with CWA officials to deny them the freedom to decide their own representation in the first place.”

Although Qwest’s National Network Service workers are spread throughout the country, most of the workers that filed charges hail from the Northeast and Northwest regions.

Mount Clemons, MI (January 26, 2005) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit has issued a formal complaint and will prosecute a local union for unlawfully threatening to fine a group of nonunion hospital employees up to $4,000 each for refusing to strike.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helped the four Mt. Clemen’s General Hospital employees involved in the dispute file unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB last November after the employees continued to do their jobs during a recent strike.

In August of 2004, Deborah Mounger, Cherie Jones, Kimberly Grifka, and Jennifer Pacyga all individually chose to send letters to the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) formally revoking their union memberships. By resigning from formal union membership, employees are not subject to union rules and internal union discipline.

After having officially resigned from membership in OPEIU, the four local women continued going to work during a union strike. On October 28th, each woman received a letter stating that OPEIU union officials were filing internal charges against them, and that they faced fines of $500 per charge, for totals of up to $4,000 a person simply for reporting to work during the strike.

“OPEIU officials tried to make examples of these individuals just for going to work and doing their jobs,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union officials simply do not have the right to fine workers who are not formal union members.”

The action of the union hierarchy clearly violates NLRB v. Textile Workers, a Supreme Court decision that it is an unfair labor practice for a union to fine employees who had been union members in good standing but who resigned during a lawful strike and thereafter returned to work during that strike.

“It’s an outrage that these vindictive union officials tried to send workers to the poorhouse simply because they chose to do their jobs,” said Gleason. “This union hierarchy’s disdain for workers’ freedom and economic security shows they do not have employees’ best interests at heart.”

The NLRB Region 7 Director has scheduled a March 7, 2005, hearing date to prosecute the OPEIU union for its unlawful practices.

San Diego, Calif. (January 26, 2005) – The California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has ordered San Diego government union officials to “cease and desist” discriminating against non-union employees by withholding benefits.

The dental and eye-care benefits scheme, part of a “Memorandum of Understanding” between the San Diego Municipal Employees Association (MEA) union and the City, was designed to pressure employees into signing up as formal union members, thereby causing them to give up certain rights, including the ability to refrain from funding union political activities.

The case originated in March 2002, when police criminalist Tanya DuLaney, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, filed a formal charge with the PERB challenging the legality of the discriminatory policy.

Union officials told DuLaney that she was ineligible to receive the city-funded benefits unless she joined the union. Not wanting to waive her constitutional rights in order to enroll in a benefits plan paid for by the city, DuLaney filed the unfair labor practice charges.

“Rather than look after employees’ interests, MEA union officials withheld workers’ benefits to force them into union ranks,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Without this type of coercion, union officials know that many employees have little use for the union and would therefore resign and withhold financial support.”

The PERB agreed with Foundation attorneys’ arguments and ruled that denying the benefit opportunity was an “adverse action” discriminating against non-union employees. The Board additionally recognized that DuLaney was engaging in a “protected activity” of exercising her right not to join a union, and that union officials violated their own duty to represent fairly the interests of all employees.