New Haven, CT. (February 2, 2004) — A group of cafeteria workers at the Yale-New Haven Hospital have beaten back illegal retaliation engaged in by union officials after the employees refused to walk off the job during a strike last August.

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, thirteen hospital cafeteria employees, led by Arleen DeMaio, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2003. The charges alleged that union officials from the New England Health Care Employees Union District 1199, SEIU/AFL-CIO (NEHCEU) illegally refused to honor the workers’ resignations from formal union membership.

In addition, DeMaio and her coworkers alleged that union officials illegally ordered them to appear before a union tribunal to accept formal discipline – possibly including monetary fines – for exercising their legally protected right to work during a strike.

As part of a settlement agreement brokered at the NLRB late last week, union officials now must rescind their unlawful membership resignation policy, post notices of workers’ rights conspicuously at the workplace, and rescind all fines, penalties, or other discipline assessed against the workers.

“This illegal policy so flagrantly violated workers’ rights, the union hierarchy did not even try to defend it once they faced the possibility of prosecution,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, so long as union officials in Connecticut have the power to fire workers for refusal to pay union dues, this sort of illegal retaliation and harassment will inevitably continue.”

The NEHCEU’s illegal membership resignation scheme, outlined in the union’s bylaws, stated that workers wishing to resign must appear before a “chapter hearing board” to gain formal permission. The settlement agreement states that the policy will be eliminated from the union’s by-laws, and notice of that removal must appear in the union’s next newsletter.

The NEHCEU union officials’ actions violated workers’ protections recognized in the U.S. Supreme Court case Patternmakers v. NLRB. Under Patternmakers, union officials must allow employees to resign from formal union membership at any time and without restriction. Union officials have no legal right to enforce internal union rules – including rules that require union members to strike – against nonunion members.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. (January 29, 2004) — More than 100,000 Los Angeles County home care providers received formal notice this week of the proposed settlement of a civil rights lawsuit that will require union officials to rebate an estimated $5-10 million in illegally seized compulsory union dues. The rebates are the result of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 434B officials illegally forcing home care providers to pay for politics and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining, as well as seizing fees in excess of the negotiated amount.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, the workers began the settlement process in December 2002. The settlement was originally thought to involve only 60,000 rather than 100,000 individuals. The rebates, originally estimated at $5 million, are now expected to be as much as $10 million.

“This settlement is an incremental yet important step towards holding union officials in California accountable for how they collect and spend compulsory union dues,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, the ultimate solution to this sort of abuse is to end union officials’ government-granted privileges to force employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs.”

In December 2001, Carla West and three other home care providers filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against SEIU Local 434B, the Personal Assistance Services Council (PASC) of Los Angeles County, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and others. The Court will hold a hearing on April 5, 2004, to determine if the settlement is reasonable and fair. If the settlement is approved, the rebate checks should be mailed in July.

In settling valid constitutional claims, SEIU officials agreed to return forced union dues illegally seized from workers who were not formal union members.

During the period for which rebates are being paid, SEIU union officials failed to follow the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers v. Hudson, which requires unions to provide objecting employees an audited disclosure and advance reduction of forced union dues used for politics and other non-bargaining activities. After months of stonewalling, the SEIU produced an audit showing that a mere 48 percent of union dues are spent for collective bargaining. Objecting nonmember home care providers now pay less than half of what full union members pay in dues.

In 1999, Local 434B officials gained recognition by PASC as the exclusive bargaining agents of home care workers who provide non-medical in-home support services to disabled low-income clients. Although they are reimbursed through the state, the workers are independently hired, fired, and supervised by individual recipients of home care. The constitutionally suspect agreement brokered between union operatives and government bureaucrats declares that home care providers are “public employees” for collective bargaining purposes only, even though the PASC “employer” has no authority over hiring, firing, work schedules, workplace safety, disputes with the employer-recipient, and the amount the state pays the workers.

St. Johns, Mich. (January 27, 2004) – Two St. Johns-area Dana Corp. employees filed new federal charges seeking a court order to halt the use of threats and other coercion directed against non-union employees pursuant to a secret, back-room agreement between Dana Corporation and the United Auto Workers (UAW). The pact is intended to corral some 300 St. Johns workers into union membership despite their objections.

Dana employees Joseph Montague and Kenneth Gray filed the unfair labor practice charges this week with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys against both Dana Corp. and the UAW union at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges seek an injunction against the UAW and Dana Corp. that would block implementation of a “partnership agreement” that requires the company actively to support union organizing efforts. The charges are related to a separate case recently filed at the NLRB by worker Gary Smeltzer to void the same agreement.

Montague’s charges allege that, even after a majority of the St. Johns facility workers had signed a petition stating their opposition to unionization by the UAW union, union and Dana officials began bargaining over health benefits and other terms of employment, despite the union’s lack of majority support from workers.

Moreover, Gray alleges that, as the UAW union’s organizational efforts repeatedly failed, union officials have now conspired with Dana to “gerrymander” employees in or out of the bargaining unit – and to re-classify their employment status – strictly on the basis of their support for the union. Gray claims that workers who do not sign union authorization cards have been informed by management that they will face demotion to less-favored “salaried” positions, which would result in losses of salary and benefits. Upon receipt of the employees’ charges, the NLRB must investigate the allegations and decide whether to issue formal complaints and prosecute the charges.

“Dana and UAW union officials are shamelessly using numerous illegal tactics to strong-arm workers into union ranks despite their wishes,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Their goal is to force dissenting workers either to knuckle under – or face severe consequences.”

As part of the legally suspect “partnership agreement” between Dana and the UAW, company officials handed over employees’ personal information to union organizers and granted them wide access to employees in the plant. Union officials also made it difficult for employees to void previously signed union authorization cards, announcing that the only way they could rescind those cards would be upon a special visit from UAW operatives at the worker’s home – an intimidation tactic obviously intended to discourage dissent.

Frustrated that workers are not voluntarily choosing to join or be represented by unions, union officials have increasingly turned to bullying employers into actively aiding unions in imposing unionization on employees through so-called “partnership” and “neutrality” agreements. Through these “top-down” organizing techniques, employees are denied the opportunity to determine their union status through the less-abusive, NLRB-supervised secret ballot election process.

Springfield, Virginia (January 22, 2004) – Spokesmen from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will be available onsite at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to comment on the progress of the Right to Work movement in rolling back union special privileges as well as Big Labor’s effort to influence the 2004 elections.

Foundation President Mark Mix and Vice President Stefan Gleason, who appear frequently on national television and radio programs and whose writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, National Review Online, Washington Times, and numerous other publications, will be available for interviews.

Mr. Mix and Mr. Gleason are prepared to provide commentary on issues related to the following:

• How Big Labor’s political agenda is out of step with rank-and-file workers;
• Union officials’ plans for influencing the 2004 elections using compulsory union dues;
• Big Labor’s new organizing push using highly coercive “top-down” organizing tactics;
• The growing support for Right to Work laws around the country;
• AFL-CIO’s efforts to block the Bush Administration’s new union disclosure requirements;
• Right to Work’s recent victory in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

To schedule an interview with a Right to Work spokesman during CPAC, please call Justin Hakes, Assistant Director of Legal Information for the National Right to Work Foundation at (571) 243-3637.

Seattle, Wash. (January 20, 2004) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has cleared the path for a Seattle-based mechanic to seek damages from a local union, after its officials ordered his firing from Alaska Airlines for refusal to pay full union dues.

Obtaining free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Bernard Mackay filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) union. However, the lower court dismissed Mackay’s case, relying on the union’s disputed claim that Mackay had acquiesced to union membership and could be fired for refusal to pay full dues. The appellate court has now overturned that ruling and cleared the path for trial and the calculation of damages.

In issuing its decision, the Ninth Circuit court referred to evidence that union officials had not complied with their own bylaws defining the process for attaining union membership. If Mackay was not a formal member of the union, he was entitled to certain due process rights before he could be compelled to pay dues or fees as a job condition.

“Union officials want workers like Bernard Mackay to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “AFMA union officials put Mr. Mackay in the unemployment line simply because he objected to paying dues to a union he did not support.”

Despite AFMA union officials’ claims that he had acquiesced to union membership, Mackay never applied for union membership, never received a union membership card, never took the union’s “loyalty oath,” and never received a copy of the union constitution. Instead, the union dubbed him a member by fiat and demanded dues.

In 1998, AFMA union officials entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Alaska Airlines, Mackay’s employer, that contained a forced-dues clause. Under this clause, nonmembers may be required to pay dues to cover the union’s proven collective bargaining costs, or face discharge.

However, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, union officials must first provide nonmembers audited disclosure of their expenditures justifying the portion that workers who have chosen to refrain from union membership can be forced to pay. Mackay asserts that AFMA union officials failed to provide him with such an audit.

Akron, Ohio (January 13, 2004) – An unprecedented federal court challenge filed by employees objecting to a new unionization method gained momentum today when a United States District Court cleared the path for full discovery into details of a backroom deal intended to unionize the employees without so much as a secret ballot vote.

Obtaining free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, Wanda Patterson filed the suit in July 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP, Collins & Aikman Corp., and the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) union. Patterson is seeking to overturn a sweetheart arrangement that, among other things, requires all companies acquired by Heartland to help impose unionization on their employees and then force those employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

The U.S. District Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Heartland, Collins & Aikman, and the union. The court ordered the parties to begin pre-trial discovery, in which Wanda Patterson and her coworkers can subpoena documents and investigate the deal.

Patterson’s suit calls into question the legality of a rapidly emerging organizing trend – especially prevalent in the automobile, textile, and hotel industries – in which struggling union organizers abandon traditional grassroots-driven unionization drives and instead elicit assistance from companies to impose compulsory unionism on their own employees through highly coercive “top-down” organizing methods.

“Not only does the backroom deal between Heartland and the Steelworkers union sacrifice workers’ freedom to decide their own representation, it sells them out in the first contract,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The court’s decision to proceed is an important step down the road toward outlawing these coercive, often secret, agreements nationwide.”

Patterson is an employee of the Collins & Aikman Corp., an Ohio-based automotive parts manufacturer recently acquired by Heartland.

Under the pact at issue, Heartland forces acquired companies to operate under a so-called “neutrality agreement” that requires company managers to assist USWA union officials in organizing their employees. In return, union officials pour unsuspecting workers’ trust funds into Heartland, promise to stifle employee rights under federal law, and limit employees’ ability to influence their own wages, benefits, and working conditions.

In 2001, Heartland bought out the Collins & Aikman Corp. and forced the company to accept a “neutrality agreement” with the USWA union.

In denying the motion to dismiss, the court wrote that Heartland “…has apparently selected and contracted with a union of Heartland’s choice.” It is argued that such activity violates provisions of federal law intended to prohibit conflicts of interest, sweetheart deals, and other employer-union coercion.

Upper Sandusky, Ohio (January 12, 2004) – Employees at Dana Corporation’s Upper Sandusky facility have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking that officials of the nation’s largest auto workers union be stripped of their newly granted exclusive representation power over nearly two hundred of the company’s employees.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Clarice Atherholt
filed the decertification petition signed by 35 percent of her coworkers after Dana Corp. began bargaining with the United Auto Workers (UAW) union without allowing the employees to cast a secret ballot. Atherholt is challenging the NLRB’s new “voluntary recognition bar” that stipulates generally that employers may bargain with a union for a period of one year after the implementation of a collective bargaining agreement before the agency will allow employees to obtain a decertification election.

The employees were denied the opportunity to decide their union status through the less abusive secret ballot election process, but they are seeking that opportunity to vote now.

If a decertification election is allowed and is successful, the UAW would lose its power to act as the “exclusive bargaining representative” of the employees. All Dana employees then would be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment.

“Workers should have a right to cast off the unwanted monopoly representation of union officials at any time,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “It’s an outrage that Dana Corp. struck a backroom deal with UAW officials to deny them their rights.”

In early December, the collective bargaining agreement was implemented pursuant to a so-called “neutrality” agreement and a “card check” authorization process – a process that bypasses a secret ballot election and allows union officials to bully workers one-on-one into signing union recognition cards. In recent years union organizers have had less success in persuading employees to vote in favor of unionization, and thus have focused on eliciting employer support to corral workers into union collectives through methods that are intended to curtail employee influence over the union recognition process.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have three other cases pending against Dana and the UAW union for abuses under these coercive agreements. Currently, there are two cases on appeal in Virginia and Kentucky, as well as a recently filed round of charges pending in Michigan.

Washington, D.C. (January 2, 2004) – The U.S. District Court ruled on New Year’s Eve to block the implementation of the Bush Administration’s new union financial regulations that were scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2004.

The new disclosure requirements, which National Right to Work Foundation officials have argued should have been much more stringent, would nevertheless have provided more information than in the past to rank-and-file union employees as to how their compulsory union dues are spent.

The Foundation filed as amicus curiae in defense of the regulations, arguing that there is not an undue burden on unions to comply, and that the regulations are greatly needed to help combat rampant union corruption and financial malfeasance.

U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington, DC, granted the AFL-CIO’s motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby effectively halting implementation during the 2004 reporting year. However, the court will decide the ultimate fate of the regulations at a later time.

«Judge Kessler gave the AFL-CIO what it wanted — the ability to conduct an all-out campaign to defeat President Bush and Congressional Republicans without having to reveal to rank-and-file workers the depth and breadth of the political activities funded by their compulsory union dues,» said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

«For the past two years, the AFL-CIO’s strategy has been to run the clock in order to stall the implementation of this much-needed reform until such time as a new president would be in place to overturn it.»

Hartford, Conn. (December 30, 2003) — A federal administrative law judge today awarded an employee of Colt Manufacturing nearly $31,000 in compensation plus interest for pay lost after he was illegally fired at the request of union officials. The award ends a more than decade-long legal battle that resulted from the worker’s firing for refusal to pay union dues while the union failed to meet its obligation to notify workers of their right to pay less than full dues.

Enjoying free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, George Gally originally filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union Local Lodge 376 for ordering his termination in 1991.

Despite being reinstated after the NLRB issued a complaint in the case, Gally received no restitution from UAW union officials for lost pay during the 18-month gap. His case was later consolidated with dozens of others into a nationwide case against the UAW union, and his claim languished within the NLRB bureaucracy for more than six years.

“UAW union officials made an example of George Gally in order to keep other workers from defying their edicts,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Though long overdue, this award is a small step towards holding UAW officials accountable for trampling the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

The actions of UAW union officials violated workers’ rights recognized in the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Communications Workers v. Beck decision. Under Beck and subsequent rulings, workers have to right to refrain from full dues-paying union membership, pay a reduced fee to cover only the union’s collective bargaining costs, and refuse to pay for union ideological activities — such as politics. Union officials must also notify workers of these rights.

Despite winning back the lost salary, Gally filed another round of unfair labor practice charges against the UAW union earlier this year. Gally is challenging the union’s requirement that he renew his objection to paying for union politics as a nonmember every year.

Gally originally objected to full union membership more than a decade ago, but under rules set by UAW union officials, he is required to renew his objection every single year in order to avoid full dues payment. Though Gally renewed his objection to being a full-dues-paying member in response to a union notice to do so, union officials recently disregarded his objection and demanded that he tender full dues in order to keep his job.

St. Marys, Pa. (December 22, 2003) – A majority of employees of Metaldyne, Inc. in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, today filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking that officials of the nation’s largest autoworkers union be stripped of their newly granted exclusive representation power over hundreds of the company’s employees.

With the help of attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation, the workers filed the decertification petition against the United Auto Workers (UAW) union after Metaldyne agreed to begin bargaining with the union.

Early this month, UAW officials claimed that – pursuant to the implementation of a so-called “neutrality agreement” and a “card check” authorization process – a majority of Metaldyne employees had indicated they supported unionization. Based on this claim, which was not verified by any government official, company officials nevertheless recognized the union as the exclusive representative. This action granted union officials a monopoly on bargaining over wages and working conditions of hundreds of employees, including the power to compel dissenting employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs.

“Union organizers bypassed the traditional secret ballot election process and instead cut a deal with Metaldyne endorsing a process whereby employees are shaken down, one by one, into signing union recognition cards,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “By signing the decertification petition, these workers are saying that they want a secret ballot election to determine if employees really want the UAW union to represent them.”

If the decertification election is allowed and is successful, the UAW would lose its power to act as the “exclusive bargaining representative” of the employees, and all Metaldyne employees will be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment.

Metaldyne and UAW officials signed a so-called “neutrality agreement,” denying workers the ability to reject unionization through a secret ballot election, and allowing the union to sign up workers under a “card check” authorization scheme. In recent years union organizers have had less success in persuading employees to vote for unionization, and thus have focused on eliciting employer support to corral workers into union collectives.

Metaldyne’s parent company, Heartland Industrial Partners LLP, currently faces related federal charges filed by another group of Foundation-aided workers. In addition to a U.S. District Court suit alleging an illegal sweetheart arrangement, workers under the Heartland umbrella have filed NLRB charges challenging a “secondary boycott” provision.