Learn about Specific Foundation “Neutrality Agreement” Cases
- Dana / Metaldyne
- Heartland / Collins and Aikman
- Freightliner
- Cequent
- Suits Against State & Local Ordinances
- Other Cases
What is Top Down Organizing?
Because employees increasingly vote against unionization, Big Labor has developed new techniques to impose forced unionization on employees from the “top down.” Key elements of Top Down organizing include “neutrality agreements” and “card check” campaigns.
What is a “Neutrality Agreement”?
A “neutrality agreement” is a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union’s attempt to organize its workforce. Often employers agree to hand over workers to the union after the Union Bosses initiate a “corporate campaign” that uses publicity stunts, frivolous law suits, boycotts and blackmail to pressure the company to sign the “Neutrality Agreement.” Once signed, company management and the Union Bosses use a number of methods to force workers to be represented by the company’s chosen union. (Find out more about the methods most often used or see examples of “Neutrality Agreements)
What is a “Card Check” Organizing Drive
In a “Card Check” organizing drive the employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election. Instead, the employer pledges to automatically recognize the union without an election if the union presents the company with the requisite number of signed authorization cards. Experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards.
Top Down Organizing Resources
What are my Rights if there is a “Card Check” campaign at my Workplace?
How do I know whether I am subject to a “Neutrality Agreement”?
These companies are known to have “neutrality agreements”: (Click each one to find out more.)
- Angelica with the UNITE HERE Union
- California Nursing Home Operators with the SEIU Union
- Collins & Aikman with the USWA
- Dana Corp with the UAW, (View agreement)
- Freightliner with the UAW, (View agreement, Second agreement)
- Greater New York Health Care Facilities Association with SEIU
- Heartland with the USWA
- Horseshoe Hotel and Casino with LJEBLV
- Johnson Controls with the UAW
- League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of New York with SEIU
- Lear with the UAW
- Mandalay Resort Group/Circus Circus Hotel and Casino with LJEBLV
- Magna with the UAW
- Metaldyne with the UAW and USWA
- National Steel Corporation (Great Lakes Division) with the USWA
- Quebecor and Teamsters Union
- Verizon Wireless with IBEW & CWA, (View Verizon Florida agreement with IBEW, Verizon North agreement with IBEW, Verizon Southwest Agreement with CWA)
- Warnaco with UNITE
- Zed F with the UAW
Read the United Autoworkers Union Model Neutrality Agreement
An Excel spreadsheet list of other “card check” neutrality agreements is available via the National Labor Relations Board’s website (under “Post Dana Corp. Case Processing“). If you know of other companies with “Neutrality Agreements”, or think your company might have a “Neutrality Agreement”, please contact us.
Newspaper Ads about “Neutrality Agreements”
Articles, Studies and Testimony about “Neutrality Agreements”
- Foundation Attorney Glenn M. Taubman’s Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions (6/26/13)
- Wall Street Journal: Why Not Liberate the American Worker – by Mark Mix (12/31/2005)
- NILRR: Big Labor-Funded Study to Promote Coercive “Top Down” Organizing is Debunked by Research Institute (1/6/2006) (View the report here)
- Foundation Attorney William Messenger’s Testimony before the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (9/23/2004)
- Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society: “Neutrality Agreements” and the Destruction of Employee’s Section 7 Rights – by Glenn Traubman (5/2005)
- Liberty Magazine: Card Sharks & Marks – Bruce N. Cameron (1/2006)
- Detroit News: Majority Rules, Big Labor Style – by Stefan Gleason (6/25/2004)
- National Review: What About the Members’ – by Stefan Gleason (8/8/2005)
- NILRR: What’s ‘Democratic’ about Compulsory Unionism” Inconsistent Reasoning, ‘Top Down Organizing Tactics Discredit ‘Majority Rule’ Excuse For Forced Dues (8/2003)
- NILRR: Big Labor’s Cockamamie Campaign Against Secret Ballot Elections For Workers (10/2003)
Employees Speak Out About “Neutrality Agreements” and Union Bullying
- Marlene Felters’s Congressional Testimony (6/26/2013) Washington, DC)
- Larry Getts’ Congressional Testimony (3/10/2009) Washington, DC
- Mike Ivey’s Congressional Testimony (2/8/2007) Washington, DC
- Karen Mayhew’s Congressional Testimony (2/8/2007) Washington, DC
- Statement by Freightliner Employee Katherine Ivey (1/24/2006) Detroit, MI
- Statement by Freightliner Employee Timothy Cochrane (1/24/2006) Detroit, MI
- Declaration by Dana Corp Employee Clarice Atherholt (1/13/2004)
- Statement by Dana Corp Employee Donna Stinson (5/12/2004)
- Statement by Freightliner Employee Mike Ivey (5/12/2004) Washington, DC
- Statement by Thomas Built Bus Employee Jeff Ward (5/12/2004) Washington, DC
- Statement by Collins & Aikman Employee Edna Dawson (5/12/2004) Washington, DC
- Declaration by Renaissance Hotel Employee Faith Jetter (11/19/2003)
- Declaration by Renaissance Hotel Employee David Harlich (11/19/2003)
Your Right to Decertify or Deauthorize the Union
- Decertification Election – Your right to eliminate the union from your workplace
- Deauthorization Election – Your right to eliminate forced dues from your workplace
Litigation and Legal Documents
- Foundation Assisted Federal Class Action Racketeering (RICO) Lawsuit Against Freightliner and the UAW Union
- Foundation Assisted Dana/Metaldyne Brief to the NLRB, Reply Brief
- All Briefs from the Dana/Metaldyne NLRB Case
- Foundation’s “Friend of the Court” Brief in Pataki
- Foundation’s “Friend of the Court” Brief in MMAC
- View individual case pages for more legal documents
National Right to Work Foundation Press Releases about “Neutrality Agreements” and “Card Check”
- Special Bulletin for Private Sector Workers Subjected to Top Down Organizing
- National Right to Work To Triple Pro Bono Assistance to Workers Facing Abusive Union Organizing Tactics
- National Worker Rights Advocacy Group Launches Ad Campaign to Educate Employees Subjected to UAW Union’s Top-Down Organizing Program
State and Local Laws Imposing Neutrality & Card Check:
Similar to neutrality clauses in collective bargaining agreements, another tactic employed by unions to increase union membership without actually soliciting the preferences of workers is to incorporate neutrality agreements in local government wage ordinances. These ordinances often impose so-called “neutrality agreements” on employers who accept service contracts, operating grants, or tax abatements from local governments and bar employers from providing factual information about the possible downsides if unionization, should a union attempt to organize their workers.
They also prevent employers from insisting on a secret ballot election to protect their employees’ rights and force employers to recognize the union as the monopoly bargaining representative when presented with a majority of signed authorization cards, despite the fact that often employees sign such cards under false pretences. Here are examples of these ordinances, which are likely pre-empted by the NLRA, that include neutrality or card-check provisions:
- Allegheny County, PA- Sec. 13, Union Neutrality (pg. 25)
- Fairfax, CA – Sec. 8.50.048, Labor Relation Neutrality (pg. 5), 2002
- Marin County, CA – Sec. 2.50.130, Neutrality in Labor Relations (pg. 5), 2002
- Watsonville, CA – Sec 2-5.13, Labor Relation Peace and Neutrality (pg. 11), 2002
- Santa Cruz County, CA – Sec. 5.10.110, Labor Relation Neutrality (pg. 7, 15), 2001
- Pittsburgh, PA – Sec. 12, Union Neutrality (pg. 21), 2001
- Los Angeles County, CA – Sec. 2.201.050 B, Neutrality in Labor Relations (pg. 7), 1999
- Minneapolis, MN – “Adopting a Living Wage Policy,” #7 (pg. 5), 1997
- St. Paul, MN – Preamble, #7 (pg. 5), 1997
Other Top Down Organizing Methods
Project Labor Agreements
A “project labor agreement” is when the government awards contracts for public construction projects exclusively to unionized firms. Because the vast majority of contractors and their employees – more than 80 percent – have voluntarily opted against unionization when given the free choice, Big Labor has turned to politicians to remove that choice and impose union representation on employees from the top down. (Learn more about Project Labor Agreements)
See what the National Right to Work Foundation is doing to protect workers from the abuses associated with “Project Labor Agreements”
- National Employee Rights Advocate Calls Upon Ohio Attorney General to Oppose Union Discrimination
- Supreme Court Upholds Bush Ban on Discriminatory Union-Only Contracting (Click here to read Bush’s Executive Order)
- Bush Ban on Discriminatory Union-Only Contracting Upheld by Appellate Court
- National Right to Work Joins Appeal to Ban Discriminatory Union-Only Contracting
- Unprecedented Union-Only Project Labor Agreement Hit With Lawsuit
- National Employee Rights Group Announces Legal Action Against Costly Project Labor Agreement