Croswell, MI (April 14, 2015) – An eastern-Michigan electrical worker has filed a federal charge against a local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union for using intimidation and coercion to stop workers from exercising their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law.

With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Paramount Industries employee Ryan Greene filed the charge last week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Detroit.

Under Michigan’s Right to Work law, no worker can be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.

However, under a new policy issued October 1, 2014, IBEW Local 58 union officials require workers to show up in person and provide photo identification to exercise their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law. According to the charge, Greene, who resigned his IBEW union membership and revoked his dues deduction authorization discovered the new policy through an arbitration the union brought against Paramount to force Greene to continue to be a dues-paying member.

Greene’s charge comes on the heels of a federal settlement won by CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. truck driver Kathileen Sulkowski. Sulkowski filed a similar charge with the aid of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in 2014 after United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 600 union officials denied her request to resign her union membership and dues payments unless she show up in person and provide photo identification to exercise her right to refrain from union membership. Earlier this year, the NLRB initiated a prosecution of the UAW Local 600, spurring the settlement.

«Union officials continue to pull out all the stops to prevent workers from exercising their rights under Michigan’s Right to Work law,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «IBEW union officials’ latest tactic requiring workers to show up in person and furnish photo identification is designed to dissuade or intimidate them from exercising their rights to refrain from membership.»

Foundation staff attorneys are assisting several workers in cases across Michigan challenging union officials’ schemes stonewalling workers attempts to exercise their rights under the state’s Right to Work law.

Boston, MA (April 7, 2015) – Several Massachusetts caregivers have filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals after their lawsuit, which challenges a state law that forces home-based childcare providers to accept union monopoly bargaining, was dismissed in Massachusetts District Court.

Providers Kathleen D’Agostino, Denise Boian, Jean Demers, Judith Santos, Elizabeth Mongeon, Stephanie Kozlowski Heck, Leslie Marcyoniak, Laurie Smith, and Kelly Winship filed the appeal on Tuesday with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

The other providers seek to halt implementation of a 2012 law that designates Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 509 as the monopoly bargaining agent for thousands of providers in the state, all of whom are either small business owners or family members who take care of relatives’ children.

With the help of Foundation attorneys, homecare providers have challenged similar forced unionization schemes in several states, including Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois. In 2014, Foundation attorneys won a landmark Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn, which outlawed unions from collecting forced dues from home-based caregivers.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled against homecare unions’ forced-dues powers, union organizers have continued their efforts to push unwilling homecare providers into union ranks. Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government.

Under the Massachusetts scheme, SEIU Local 509 union officials are empowered to bargain on behalf of all care providers – even those who are not union members – over a small subsidy the providers receive from the state government.

«Citizens are the ones who should be deciding who represents them in the political sphere, not government officials or union bosses,» said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Homecare unionization schemes like the one we’re challenging in Massachusetts are an affront to the principle of free association, which is why we’re helping these childcare providers stand up for their rights.”

Washington, DC (April 6, 2015) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency charged with administering private sector labor law, recently issued a decision blocking Karen Cox and her Americold Logisitics coworkers from ejecting an unwanted union. Cox received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys after United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 578 union lawyers intervened to block their efforts to remove the union.

In August 2013, the Board conducted an election at the Americold facility, but impounded the ballots pending the union’s appeal. It will now destroy those ballots.

The Board held that workers who are pushed into union ranks by a “card check” organizing drive can be required to wait up to a year after union and company officials’ first bargaining meeting before they can attempt to decertify an unwanted union. For workers unionized through a traditional secret ballot election, however, this waiting period starts as soon as a union is recognized as their bargaining agent.

Under the Board’s ruling, unions that get in via card check can hold up the bargaining process to delay employees’ efforts to eject the union. Consequently, union organizers have an even greater incentive to avoid secret ballot elections in favor of card check, despite the fact that card check campaigns are often characterized by intimidation, harassment, and coercion on the part of union organizers. This is one of the reasons Congress rejected legislation that would have mandated card check recognition.

In 2011, the Board issued the Lamons Gasket decision, which overturned the Foundation-won Dana precedent and eliminated a 45-day window period for workers to decertify a union following a card check drive. This latest ruling builds on the Lamons Gasket precedent to further curtail the rights of employees organized via card check.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement criticizing the Board’s decision:

“Once again, the Obama Labor Board is doing everything it can to prevent independent-minded workers from ejecting an unwanted union. It is outrageous that Karen Cox and her coworkers’ uncounted ballots will now be destroyed because this NLRB says that workers who are unionized through the abusive card check method have to wait longer to decertify a union than workers who were unionized through a traditional secret ballot vote.

“Congress rejected legislation that would have mandated card check recognition because of the intimidation, coercion, and harassment inherent in bypassing secret ballot elections, and yet in this ruling the Obama Board has twisted the law to deny workers their vote to decertify the union solely because they were previously denied a secret ballot vote over unionization.

“This decision, combined with the ambush election rule set to go into effect in just days, demonstrates that the Obama NLRB aims to force as many employees as possible into union ranks and will disregard the rights of any worker who wishes to remain independent to achieve that goal.”

State Troopers File Federal Lawsuit against Connecticut State Police Union

Union bosses violate Connecticut state police troopers’ rights by failing to comply with U.S. Supreme Court protections for nonmember employees

Hartford, CT (March 30, 2015) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four Connecticut state troopers have filed a federal lawsuit against the Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) and the state for violating their rights and refusing to follow federal disclosure requirements.

State trooper Marc Lamberty resigned from formal union membership in the CSPU and invoked his right to refrain from paying full union dues in June 2011. Troopers Joseph Mercer, Carson Konow, and Collin Konow did so in November 2014.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that workers have the unconditional right to refrain from union membership at any time. Even though the state troopers are not CSPU members, they must still accept union officials’ monopoly bargaining «representation,» and because Connecticut does not have a Right to Work law, union officials can compel the troopers into paying union fees as a condition of employment.

Click here to read the full release.

Hartford, CT (March 30, 2015) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, four Connecticut state troopers have filed a federal lawsuit against the Connecticut State Police Union (CSPU) and the state for violating their rights and refusing to follow federal disclosure requirements.

State trooper Marc Lamberty resigned from formal union membership in the CSPU and invoked his right to refrain from paying full union dues in June 2011. Troopers Joseph Mercer, Carson Konow, and Collin Konow did so in November 2014.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that workers have the unconditional right to refrain from union membership at any time. Even though the state troopers are not CSPU members, they must still accept union officials’ monopoly bargaining «representation,» and because Connecticut does not have a Right to Work law, union officials can compel the troopers into paying union fees as a condition of employment.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation’s Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson case that union officials must provide nonmember public employees with an independently-audited breakdown of all forced-dues union expenditures and the opportunity to object and challenge the amount of forced union fees before an impartial decision maker. These minimal safeguards are designed to ensure that workers have an opportunity to refrain from paying for union political activities and member-only events.

Despite these limited protections, the state continues to deduct, and union officials continue to receive, full union dues from the officers’ paychecks as if they are union members. Further, despite the officers’ requests that union officials acknowledge their rights and provide them with the financial breakdown of union expenditures, union officials refuse to comply with Hudson‘s requirements.

The troopers seek refunds of the amount of forced union dues payments illegally taken from their paychecks and to enjoin future collection of any dues or fees until union officials follow the law.

«Once again, union officials are keeping rank-and-file state troopers in the dark to keep their forced-dues gravy train going,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «To prevent these types of forced unionism abuses in the future, Connecticut needs to pass a Right to Work law making union affiliation and dues payments completely voluntary for all of its workers.»

Twenty-five states have Right to Work protections for employees. Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union members support the principle of voluntary unionism.

Family Child Care Providers’ Class-Action Lawsuit Spurs SEIU Officials to Back Down from Forced Dues Demands

Home-based child care providers challenge forced unionization law; seek refund of illegally-seized union dues

Olympia, WA (March 27, 2015) – The day after a group of family child care providers filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a 2006 law that authorizes the forcible unionization of Washington State’s 12,000 home-based child care providers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925 officials sent a letter to providers in the state dropping their forced dues demands.

The development comes immediately in the wake of a federal lawsuit filed by Cindy Mentele and three other providers from around the state with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in conjunction with the Freedom Foundation. The lawsuit, which names Governor Jay Inslee in addition to SEIU Local 925, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Click here to read the full release.

Olympia, WA (March 27, 2015) – The day after a group of family child care providers filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a 2006 law that authorizes the forcible unionization of Washington State’s 12,000 home-based child care providers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925 officials sent a letter to providers in the state dropping their forced dues demands.

The development comes immediately in the wake of a federal lawsuit filed by Cindy Mentele and three other providers from around the state with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in conjunction with the Freedom Foundation. The lawsuit, which names Governor Jay Inslee in addition to SEIU Local 925, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The child care providers’ lawsuit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of free political expression and association. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate providers’ First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government because the government does not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to accept its handpicked political representative to lobby itself.

The child care providers also seek repayment of union fees illegally taken from them by the Governor, and given to SEIU Local 925, over the past three years.

Home-based child care and personal care providers, with Right to Work Foundation attorneys’ assistance, have challenged similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states across the country, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn, argued by Right to Work Foundation attorneys, striking down the Illinois scheme, ruling that individuals who receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court did not rule on whether providers can be forced to accept the union’s so-called representation under a monopoly bargaining scheme.

«Citizens have the power to select their political representation in government, not the other way around,» said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «Although a positive first step, this letter doesn’t begin to address the gross violations this forced unionism scheme inflicts on Washington State’s child care providers’ First Amendment rights of free expression and association.»

Act 10 Lawsuit Judgment Strikes Down Forced Dues Contracts between Kenosha School District and Unions

Bargaining agreements between unions and the school district violated Wisconsin’s public-sector labor reform statute

Kenosha, WI (March 27, 2015) – In a lawsuit filed by current and former Kenosha public school teachers, a state court has struck down monopoly bargaining agreements between the Kenosha Unified School District and School Board and three local unions as illegal under Wisconsin’s 2011 public-sector unionism reforms commonly referred to as Act 10.

Current Kenosha school teacher Carrie Ann Glembocki and former Kenosha school teacher Kristi LaCroix filed the lawsuit in November 2013, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. The lawsuit challenged bargaining agreements between the District and officials from the Kenosha Education Association union, the SEIU Local 168 union, and the AFSCME Local 2383 union. Those agreements required teachers and other District staff to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

Click here to read the full release.

Kenosha, WI (March 27, 2015) – In a lawsuit filed by current and former Kenosha public school teachers, a state court has struck down monopoly bargaining agreements between the Kenosha Unified School District and School Board and three local unions as illegal under Wisconsin’s 2011 public-sector unionism reforms commonly referred to as Act 10.

Current Kenosha school teacher Carrie Ann Glembocki and former Kenosha school teacher Kristi LaCroix filed the lawsuit in November 2013, with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. The lawsuit challenged bargaining agreements between the District and officials from the Kenosha Education Association union, the SEIU Local 168 union, and the AFSCME Local 2383 union. Those agreements required teachers and other District staff to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.

Under Wisconsin’s 2011 Act 10 labor reforms, most public-sector employees cannot be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment or accept unwanted union representation for matters other than base wages. In November 2013, however, the Kenosha School Board approved bargaining agreements with unions covering numerous subjects Act 10 prohibits, including a provision that allowed union officials to collect dues from all District employees, including nonmembers.

The lawsuit prompted the District and the local school board to enter into a settlement with the teachers in June 2014 declaring their collective bargaining agreements with the unions null and void. The settlement also required the District and school board to refrain from forcing teachers and other staff to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

The lawsuit continued against the three unions because they were not parties to the settlement.

«This ruling holds that Kenosha public school employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees to get or keep a job in violation of Act 10,» said Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. «This judgment affirms once again that union officials are not above the law.»

State Employees Move to Defend Rauner’s Federal Challenge to Government Union Bosses’ Forced Dues Powers

Legal action argues forced union dues and fees for government employees violates the First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of association

Washington, DC (March 23, 2015) – Three Illinois state employees have moved to intervene in support of Governor Bruce Rauner’s federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of union officials’ power to force nonmember state employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment.

The three state employees, Mark Janus, Marie Quigley, and Brian Trygg, filed the motion to intervene in the lawsuit today with legal assistance from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois Policy Institute’s Liberty Justice Center.

Governor Rauner issued an executive order in February that instructs all state agencies to put in escrow, pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit filed the same day, all forced union-fee deductions from nonmember state employees’ wages required by Illinois’ public-sector labor relations statute.

Click here to read the full release.