**Albuquerque, NM (September 22, 2006)** – The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to overturn a District Court ruling ordering union officials to refund all dues seized by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) Local 624 from nonunion city government employees.

The unanimous 21-page ruling came in Wessel v. Albuquerque, a case brought by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for city government employees against the City of Albuquerque and the AFSCME Local 624, after the city deducted union dues used for activities unrelated to collective bargaining and without proper procedural protections.

The appeals court agreed with the District Court that union witnesses had failed to prove that the forced dues – seized from nonunion employees – were being spent to the benefit of the city government employees and rejected the union’s position that nonmembers be forced to pay. Union officials could not meet their constitutional burden of proof that the seized money is used for collective bargaining expenses.

The case was originally filed in January 2000 by Rory Wessel of Albuquerque, and twelve other city employees, after the City of Albuquerque heeded the demands of union officials of AFSCME Local 624 to withhold compulsory union dues from employees’ paychecks without observing constitutional due process requirements.

“In their rush to hoard forced dues, union officials showed complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the very employees they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Ultimately, this case illustrates why New Mexico needs to enact a state Right to Work law that would make payment of union dues completely voluntary.”

Like many agreements around the country, the collective bargaining agreement also included an indemnification clause in which the union promised the city that it would pay all legal costs in defending a suit filed by employees whose constitutional rights were violated. On an earlier appeal the court found this contract provision void as against public policy. The appeals court now has remanded to the District Court the issue of whether the city must disgorge the money it received under the illegal clause. Foundation attorneys are confident the District Court will order the money’s return – an action that would serve as a strong deterrent to other government bodies that might consider aiding unions in violating employees’ First Amendment rights.

The thirteen plaintiffs will receive approximately $1,800 in refunded dues, interest and damages to go along with the over $600 already refunded to them. A companion class-action case, also filed with free legal aid from Foundation attorneys, was settled in 2005 resulting in almost 500 nonunion employees receiving nearly $180,000 in refunded dues, interest and damages.

Download the Appeals Court Decision

**Springfield, VA (September 21, 2006)** – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s ground-breaking ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that will effectively force coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

“In a controversial decision with national implications, the activist Ninth Circuit in Chamber v. Lockyer has done an about face and upheld a California law which will surely result in increased pressure on employees to join unions.

“This special-interest state statute is pre-empted by federal labor law, which is supposed to protect employees from pressure to unionize by other entities working in concert with union officials. Numerous federal courts across America have recognized this fact before the Ninth Circuit went out on this limb.

“The practical effect will be that employees of private employers wishing to accept funds from the state must be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization, and their employers could ultimately be blackballed from government contracts unless they clear the path for union organizers to recruit new forced-dues-paying members. Moreover, union organizers will insist that the law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union – a procedure overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

“State officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to these tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues into their coffers.

“The National Right to Work Foundation denounces this rogue appellate ruling and vows to support efforts to gain U.S. Supreme Court review.”

In its “In the Pipeline” article about cases up for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, National Review Online detailed the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s pending Davenport v. Washington Education Association case as among the most high profile. The case seeks to reverse the collateral damage to employee rights caused by the Washington Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s ineffective “paycheck protection” law.

To read the article, click here.

To read the Foundation’s latest news about Davenport v. Washington Education Association, click here.

Media seeking comment or an interview with a Foundation spokesperson should contact Justin Hakes, Legal Information Director, at 703-770-3317, or by email.

**Tampa, FL (September 11, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five nonunion security officers employed at the Tampa Federal Courthouse won a lawsuit in state court this week against security union officials who illegally threatened to have them fired for refusing to join or financially support the union.

The ruling slows a statewide scheme by union officials to force employees at federal buildings into union ranks against their will.

Fred Bohlig and four coworkers filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in November 2003 against the union after United Government Security Officers of America (UGSOA) union Local 132 officials attempted to circumvent Florida’s Right to Work law. The highly popular law protects employees from being forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union.

“This victory is an incremental yet important step towards protecting employee freedom in the Sunshine State,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “With these bully tactics, it’s obvious that the union hierarchy is more concerned with milking workers for forced union dues than supposedly ‘representing’ them.”

As part of an effort to pressure nonunion workers into paying dues, UGSOA union officials posted a notice at the Tampa Federal Courthouse in October 2003 threatening that all security officers would lose their jobs unless they agreed either to join the union or pay dues.

The notice falsely claimed the security officers worked on federal property and are not protected by Florida’s Right to Work law – and thus could be forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment. Although it is true workers employed at some federal installations cannot be protected by a state Right to Work law, the court agreed with Foundation attorneys that the Tampa Federal Courthouse does not qualify as such a location.

The unlawful threats are part of an emerging trend under which union officials seek to bypass Right to Work laws – an unfortunate growing pattern the Foundation is battling both in Florida and nationwide. In another recent Foundation case in Florida, four nonunion employees at a federal detention facility in Miami recently hit the Teamsters Local 769 union with a similar lawsuit for illegally ordering them to pay union dues or face termination.

**Columbus, OH (September 6, 2006)** – Resolving a case brought by an Ohio state employee with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a federal judge signed a decree yesterday settling a religious discrimination lawsuit in union contracts for all state workers. The consent decree re-affirms that all public sector employees who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation cannot be forced to associate with and pay dues to a union they find objectionable.

The state’s agencies and the union hierarchy were denying, as a matter of policy, religious objections to the payment of forced union dues when objecting employees were not members of certain state-approved churches.

The settlement concludes a lawsuit for systemic religious discrimination filed by Foundation attorneys, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OPEA), the Ohio State Employment Relations Board, the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union, and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

In a related matter, the EEOC also determined that the OCSEA union illegally retaliated against the worker who brought the original case after objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds. OCSEA union officials’ had filed a retaliatory counter-claim against Glen Greenwood – a 28-year OEPA employee – demanding that he repay the union for all raises and employment benefits he received for the past quarter century.

As a devout Presbyterian, Greenwood believes that supporting the OCSEA union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the union’s support for abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

“This decree stalls state and OCSEA union officials’ systematic religious discrimination against Ohio’s public servants,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “The union hierarchy’s willingness to violate employees’ religious freedom demonstrates how their interests are squarely at odds with the employees they claim to represent.”

The actions of OCSEA union officials and the state agencies violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, an employee may not be forced to financially support a union if doing so violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. 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, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.

Download Mark Mix’s statement as an MP3: Full Statement, Short Clip

**Springfield, VA (September 1, 2006)** – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to the passing of this year’s Labor Day holiday. The Foundation is a non-profit legal aid organization providing free help to victims of compulsory unionism abuse.

“While Americans hit the beaches and fire up the barbeques to celebrate Labor Day, the holiday marks a bittersweet occasion for millions of hardworking Americans forced to join or pay dues to a labor union just to get or keep a job.

“In the 28 states without a Right to Work law that makes union affiliation strictly voluntary, millions of our fellow citizens would be fired if they refused to pay union dues.

“Despite their feel-good rhetoric about standing up for workers’ rights, union officials commonly target dissenting workers. Sadly, such retaliation often takes the form of harassment, firings, and even brutal violence.

“Throughout the past year, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has fought back for thousands of such union-abused workers.

“In Washington State, we helped a group of state employees win their jobs back after union officials had them fired for refusal to pay dues. In Ohio, we’re helping nurses resist threats, stalkings, and surveillance by union operatives, all because the nurses don’t feel union officials represent their best interests. In North Carolina, we’re helping a group of auto workers in a federal racketeering lawsuit against their employer and union for systematically imposing unionization on thousands of their colleagues.

“These are just a few examples of the ugly compulsory unionism abuse we help workers fight back against every day.

“And so, as Big Labor officials dish out their tired old Labor Day propaganda, let us not forget about those rank-and-file workers who have paid a high price for standing up to union officials and exercising their individual rights.

“These workers have nothing for which to thank organized labor. This Labor Day, in fact, they are owed an apology.”

To schedule an interview – or for more information – call Justin Hakes at 703-770-3317.

**Springfield, VA (August 24, 2006)** – Experts from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will be available for comment and interviews on and around Labor Day about workers’ rights, union political activities leading up to midterm elections, union organizing, corruption, violence, and other issues relating to organized labor in America. The Foundation is a non-profit, charitable organization that provides free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse, and the only national group of this kind.

Foundation experts have been interviewed on national television and radio programs, including The O’Reilly Factor, Special Report with Brit Hume, CNBC’s Closing Bell, and on CNN. Their writings frequently appear in The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Investor’s Business Daily, and numerous other publications. They are prepared to comment on or debate any issues related to the following:

• Big Labor’s political efforts to install a majority in Congress sympathetic to expanding union special privileges during the 2006 mid-term election cycle;

• How the Bush-appointed National Labor Relations Board has delayed rulings on many of the most cutting-edge cases in American labor law – allowing union officials to step up their aggressive organizing tactics which often violate workers’ rights;

• Organized labor’s war on the secret ballot election process for workers choosing whether to unionize, increasing use of coercive “card check” organizing campaigns against workers, and “corporate campaigns” to embarrass and bully nonunion companies;

• How Big Labor’s political agenda is often out of step with many rank-and-file workers’ beliefs;

• The growing support for job-producing Right to Work laws that make union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary;

• Examples of workers’ rights abuse resulting from forced union dues, union violence, violations of religious freedom, and other infringements of employees’ individual rights;

• How teacher union officials have contributed to a decline in public education while blocking efforts at reform.

To schedule an interview – or for more information – call Justin Hakes at 703-770-3317 or send him an email.

**Washington, DC (August 24, 2006)** —National Right to Work Foundation attorneys took additional steps today to secure U.S. Supreme Court review of a controversial Washington State Supreme Court ruling which struck down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics. The Foundation attorneys representing Washington teachers filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the record after union lawyers attempted to mislead the High Court so that it would not take up the case.

Specifically, the Right to Work brief takes the Washington Education Association (WEA) union to task for deliberately mischaracterizing the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in order to make it appear justified. Specifically, the union claimed that the Washington law had attempted to ban unions from spending any money on politics, rather than simply banning the use of funds collected from non-union members without their affirmative authorization.

The teachers’ brief also responded to the union lawyers’ assertion that the campaign finance law had somehow placed unfair burdens on the union, even though union officials enjoy extraordinary legal privileges and immunities under Washington State law. As the Foundation’s brief points out, “Who, trying to obtain money from another, would consider it a burden to have to actually ask for the money?”

Foundation attorneys – working jointly with Steven O’Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle – originally filed the suit, Davenport v. Washington Education Association, for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless forced to pay union dues or fees.

But much to the dismay of nonunion Washington employees, the long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the state supreme court in mid-March struck down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington’s troubled “paycheck protection” law, and in the process created a precedent that could be used to attack Right to Work laws across America.

Though the Foundation believes the decision is wrongheaded, the ruling brings into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if the state supreme court had upheld the law, I-134 would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average. Ultimately, only the passage of a Right to Work law in Washington would ensure that union dues are not misused.

“The real solution is to attack forced unionism at its root, rather than try to regulate its ill effects,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The Foundation has no choice but to help mop up the damage to the First Amendment being caused by courts responding to these ‘paycheck protection’ laws.”

The brief can be found here.

**Minneapolis, MN (August 23, 2006)** — With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a stage technician hit the International Association of Theatrical State Employees (IATSE) union Local 490 with federal charges – challenging an industry-wide forced union dues scheme.

Filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the unfair labor practice charges detail how IATSE union officials successfully threatened to have Gregory Niska and others black listed for exercising their legal right not to join the union. Federal labor law states that employees cannot be forced to join or pay dues to a union prior to 30 days of employment.

Niska and other employees in the theatre industry often take jobs that last less than 30 days, but IATSE officials have entered into contracts with production companies requiring employees to pay union dues as a job condition. The union officials’ actions violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relational Act (NLRA).

According to the NLRA, union officials cannot seize forced dues from an employee’s paycheck until after he has completed at least 30 days with the same employer. The IATSE union hierarchy, however, routinely ignores such legally-mandated grace periods and instead requires dues payment upon 30 days of work in the industry – even if no one project lasts 30 days. Upon 30 days in the industry, the union hierarchy illegally demands that theatre workers pay the union annual – as well as other various unexplained – forced dues or face blackballing from many projects.

The NLRB charge details how when Niska exercised his legal right not to pay dues to or join the union, IATSE officials placed Niska on a Do Not Hire list and notified at least one of his employers that he was “ineligible to work” at which point the employer chose not to hire Niska “in order to avoid complications.”

“With this illegal policy, IATSE union officials are extorting money out of theatre workers who are just trying to get a break,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy is more concerned with stuffing its coffers with forced dues than promoting the interests of the workers union officials supposedly represent.”

The NLRB will investigate to decide whether to prosecute the union to remedy the allegations set forth in Niska’s charges.

**Phoenix, AZ (August 16, 2006)** – Agreeing with arguments filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys and the City of Phoenix, a unanimous appellate court yesterday rejected a full-frontal union attack on Arizona’s highly popular Right to Work law, which protects employees’ right to choose whether or not to join or financially support a union.

“It is clear that the populace, through constitutional amendment and legislation, intended to forbid both management and labor from imposing, as a condition of employment, the requirement that any person participate in any form or design of union membership,” wrote the State of Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.

The case originated in 2001 during contract negotiations between the City of Phoenix and officials of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, AFL-CIO, Local 2384. The union hierarchy wanted to force city employees to pay mandatory union fees equivalent to nearly 80 percent of full union dues.

When Phoenix officials refused to negotiate these fees on the grounds that they violated Arizona’s Constitution and Right to Work statutes, the union filed an unsuccessful complaint at the Phoenix Employee Relations Board. After losing again in Arizona Superior Court, union lawyers filed an appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in 2005 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 workers and virtually all private-sector employees from being forced to join or support a union as a condition of employment. Right to Work laws also help attract new jobs to states that have these protections, and, as a result, America’s 22 Right to Work states have far outpaced compulsory unionism states in job creation and increases in the standard of living for working families.

“Union officials hate Right to Work laws because they allow workers to hold them accountable,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “They don’t want to have to persuade employees to give their voluntary support – they just want the money.”

Arizona’s Right to Work law was enacted almost 60 years ago and is so firmly a part of Arizona’s culture that it is engrained in the state constitution.