1 Dec 2019

Foundation Winning Protections Against Forced Unionism at Trump NLRB

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Series of victories adds protections against illegal forced dues, being trapped in union ranks

Staff attorney Glenn Taubman testified before Congress in July that existing NLRB rules wrongly favor union bosses over workers

Staff attorney Glenn Taubman testified before Congress in July that existing NLRB rules wrongly favor union bosses over workers.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a series of recent victories, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in favor of workers challenging coercive union official practices, with free legal aid provided by the National Right to Work Foundation. The rulings are a stark departure from the Obama NLRB, which regularly stymied the rights of independent-minded employees opposed to associating with union bosses.

Foundation Wins Appeals in Dues Checkoff Cases

In separate cases brought by Foundation staff attorneys for Kacy Warner, a hospital worker, and Shelby Krocker, a Kroger grocery employee, the NLRB General Counsel ruled for the workers and ordered Regional Directors to prosecute union officials’ actions related to language in union dues checkoff forms.

The General Counsel’s decision to sustain Warner’s appeal concerning the checkoff authorized even more additions to the charges, saying the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) union violated the NLRA by “maintaining confusing and ambiguous dual-purpose authorization forms that unlawfully restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.”

The General Counsel noted that the union’s forms failed to tell workers they can revoke authorizations for dues deductions after the union’s contract expires, failed to give workers adequate time to revoke authorizations, unlawfully required workers to use certified mail to send revocation requests, and failed to give “any indication to employees that payroll deduction authorization is voluntary.”

This came just a week after the General Counsel sustained another Foundation-led appeal for Krocker, who charged United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials with illegally forcing her to sign a dues checkoff authorization. In both cases, the NLRB General Counsel authorized even more charges against union officials for misleading and confusing language regarding union dues deductions.

NLRB Regions Instructed to Prosecute Beck Violations

Also in July, the NLRB Division of Advice and General Counsel instructed regional directors to issue complaints against unions when union officials fail to inform employees of the amount of reduced union fees they can pay by objecting under the Communication Workers of America v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The memos instruct NLRB Regional Directors to more stringently enforce workers’ Beck rights which protect workers from being forced to fund nonchargeable union activities such as union political activities. A memo issued to the Director of NLRB Region 32 read in part that “it is difficult for an employee to make an informed decision about whether to become a Beck objector without knowing the amount of savings that would result from the decision.”

“The Foundation is proud to have represented the California employee whose charge against the UFCW resulted in this Advice Memo, as well as necessitating this heightened disclosure standard by winning the Beck decision at the Supreme Court and the Penrod decision at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse said. Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating several additional cases to secure and expand workers’ protections under Beck.

Ruling Aids Workers Trapped in Union Ranks They Oppose

In another Foundation victory for independent-minded workers in July, the NLRB issued a decision that limits union officials’ ability to game the NLRB system to trap workers in monopoly union ranks. The ruling allows employers to withdraw recognition from a union when a majority of its workers sign statements opposing unionization.

Foundation staff attorneys represented two workers, Brenda Lynch and Anna Marie Grant, who spearheaded the collection of signatures from a majority of workers opposed to union representation. Their employer complied with their wishes and sent the union bosses packing. After United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials sought to foist the union back onto the workers despite their clear opposition, Foundation staff attorneys persuaded the NLRB to uphold the UAW’s ouster.

“Instead of union lawyers playing legal games for months or even years to block the removal of a union that lacks majority support, the Board majority takes the common sense approach of asking union officials to prove their claim of support in a secret ballot vote of the workers,” said LaJeunesse.

29 Nov 2019

Federal Board Adopts Foundation-Advocated Reform to Union Decertification Rules

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

National Mediation Board simplifies process for workers under Railway Labor Act to remove a union they oppose

National Mediation Board NMB

At the Foundation’s urging, the NMB removed unnecessary hurdles and simplified the process for rail and airline employees to remove unpopular unions from their workplaces.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In late July the National Mediation Board (NMB) issued its final rule simplifying decertification procedures under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The change enables workers in the airline and railway industries to more easily vote to remove a union that lacks the support of a majority of workers.

Before the decision to simplify the process, the NMB used a confusing process that required individual employees to create a fake “straw man” union to replace the incumbent union as the monopoly representative. The decertification process is particularly important because under federal law RLA unions can force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment even where state Right to Work laws protect other employees from forced union dues.

New Straightforward Rule Vindicates Foundation Campaign for Reform

“The Foundation has long advocated this type of change in the union decertification process and we are pleased the NMB has – as we called upon it to do in comments filed earlier this year – finally made this commonsense reform,” National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens said at the time.

The NMB’s final decision provides a straightforward procedure for the decertification of a union, meaning workers who do not want union representation won’t have to jump through the hoops of creating and voting for a “straw man” union just to decertify the union that currently has monopoly bargaining power over their workplace.

The NMB’s final rulemaking notice reads: “The Board believes this change is necessary to fulfill the statutory mission of the Railway Labor Act by protecting employees’ right to complete independence in the decision to become represented, to remain represented, or to become unrepresented.”

“This change will ensure that each employee has a say in their representative and eliminate unnecessary hurdles for employees who no longer wish to be represented,” the NMB continued.

The National Right to Work Foundation has long called for these rules to be updated. Foundation attorneys participated in the formal comment period process and appeared at a public hearing to address the NMB and deliver the Foundation’s position. The final rule specifically references the Foundation’s comments, vindicating its efforts in the rulemaking process.

Board Eliminates Confusing ‘Straw Man’ Election Rules

“The National Right to Work Legal Foundation (Right to Work) stated that the proposed change is ‘long overdue,’ and the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] is ‘needed to ensure that all employees have an equal and fair choice regarding union representation. The Board has statutory authority to adopt the proposed rules, and should do so as soon as possible,’” the NMB final rule reads.

The confusing rules previously forced individual employees to concoct a “straw man” union to replace the incumbent union as the monopoly representative. Once elected by a majority of the workers, the new “straw man” representative could disclaim collective representation, but was not legally required to do so.

“At long last the National Mediation Board is providing airline and railroad workers covered by the Railway Labor Act a straightforward way to remove unwanted union ‘representation’ through a direct decertification vote,” Semmens said.

“The previous system – in which workers had to create a ‘straw man’ union just to challenge an incumbent union – only served to stymie workers’ rights and demonstrated the historic bias of the NMB in favor of compulsory unionism,” said Semmens. “It wasn’t until the Foundation-won case of Russell v. NMB in 1983 that workers even had an established legal right to throw off their union ‘representative,’ albeit only through the unnecessarily complicated “straw man” system which is finally being replaced with a simplified process to allow workers to exercise that right.”

In addition to submitting the formal comments in May, veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman testified in favor of the rule change at the NMB hearing in late March.

25 Nov 2019

AT&T Employee Hits CWA Union with Unfair Labor Practices Charges for Violating Rights During Military Leave

Posted in News Releases

Union officials refused to allow worker to resign his union membership and attempted to fine him for exercising his legal rights

Jacksonville, FL (November 25, 2019) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, AT&T employee Jared Brewer has filed unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 3106 for violating his legal rights. Brewer charges that CWA union officials illegally refused to accept Brewer’s legitimate request to resign his union membership and later used that as grounds to fine Brewer after he had resigned from the union.

Brewer was on military leave when union officials called for a strike in August 2019. He sent an email to union officials in which he resigned his union membership. Instead of respecting his legal right to resign at any time, a union representative falsely told him that his resignation letter was “untimely.” Brewer returned to work and sent a certified letter containing the same resignation language.

Then in an October letter, union officials told Brewer that they were bringing charges against him in an internal union “trial” for exercising his right to work despite the union-initiated work stoppage. Brewer did not attend the November 7 “trial” because he had already resigned his union membership and therefore could not legally be subject to union disciplinary procedures.

Union officials notified Brewer on November 15 that the union had found him guilty at its “trial” and imposed a fine of more than $700. Union officials threatened him with legal action if he did not pay the fine within 21 days.

Brewer’s unfair labor practice charge alleges that union officials violated his legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by attempting to discipline and fine him as a nonmember, in addition to denying his resignation of union membership. Under the NLRA, union officials are prohibited from requiring union membership as a condition of employment and workers are free to resign their union membership.

“CWA union bosses are blatantly violating longstanding law by denying Mr. Brewer’s request to resign his union membership,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law is crystal clear: Workers have an absolute right to resign their union membership if they so choose and once a worker has exercised that right they cannot be subject to fines levied by any internal union boss kangaroo court.”

22 Nov 2019

Oregon Foodservice Workers Win Appeal: National Labor Relations Board to Resume Prosecution of Unite Here Union for Violating Workers’ Rights

Posted in News Releases

NLRB GC: Settlement NLRB Region 19 approved did not order sufficient remedies for Unite Here union officials’ illegal omissions in employee rights information

Portland, OR (November 22, 2019) — With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, two foodservice workers at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, have successfully appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel in Washington, DC, their case charging Unite Here Local 8 union bosses with illegally failing to inform employees of their rights.

The two employees, Terry Denton and Alejandro Martinez Cuevas, filed federal charges last August against Unite Here for violating federal law when union officials did not disclose the reduced amount of union fees employees could pay by refraining from formal union membership and asserting their rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision. This omission, their charges state, illegally restrained workers in the exercise of their Beck rights by preventing employees from making informed decisions about whether or not to become union members.

Because Oregon lacks a Right to Work law, private sector employees who refrain from formal union membership can still be required to pay some fees to a union as a condition of employment. However, union officials must follow the requirements of the Beck decision and cannot require workers to pay dues or fees for activities unrelated to the union’s bargaining functions, such as union political activities.

In response to Denton’s and Martinez Cuevas’s charges, the Regional Director for NLRB Region 19 issued a formal complaint against Unite Here officials in August, after which union bosses attempted to settle the case. The Regional Director’s complaint came after February advice memos from the NLRB General Counsel’s office which stated that the NLRB requires union officials to keep all workers apprised of Beck fee reductions.

The settlement the Regional Director approved, however, merely required union agents to post notices announcing that they would inform all future new employees of the reduction in union fees that would result if they asserted their rights under Beck.

Attorneys for Denton and Martinez Cuevas objected to the settlement agreement, pointing out that it did not require Unite Here bosses to inform current employees of the reductions in union fee payments they would receive by asserting their Beck rights. They also contended that the settlement did not permit current employees to resign their union memberships retroactively and recover dues that had been taken from their paychecks while they were kept in the dark about their Beck rights by Unite Here bosses.

Despite the objections, the Regional Director approved the settlement. Foundation staff attorneys then filed an appeal to the NLRB General Counsel, which was sustained on November 7. The General Counsel’s decision noted that the original settlement agreement did “not provide an appropriate remedy” and ordered Region 19 to move forward with the charges.

This marks yet another victory against union boss coercion for Denton, who earlier this year obtained free Foundation legal aid and hit Unite Here officials with federal unfair labor practice charges for demanding several months’ worth of illegal dues from nonmembers, including for months when the nonmember workers had not worked or had already paid in full. Union bosses eventually backed down and began waiving fee payments for nonmembers, but only after Denton filed her charges.

“While it is certainly good news that the General Counsel has ruled in favor of Ms. Denton, Mr. Martinez Cuevas, and their coworkers, it should not require an appeal to Washington, DC, to secure the right of workers to make an informed decision about union membership,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Future abuses of Beck can’t occur under a Right to Work law, which would ensure that union membership and financial support are strictly voluntary.”

20 Nov 2019

Boston College Electrician Hits SEIU Union, College with Lawsuit for Religious Discrimination in Forced Union Fees Requirement

Posted in News Releases

Instead of accommodating employee’s religious beliefs as required by federal law, SEIU union officials and college administrators repeatedly ignored and violated his rights

Boston, MA (November 20, 2019) — Ardeshir Ansari, an electrician who works for Boston College filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit today against the college and Service Employees International Union 32BJ, District 615 (SEIU) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense staff attorneys.

Ardeshir Ansari objects to supporting the union based on deeply held religious beliefs. Under the local SEIU’s monopoly bargaining agreement at Boston College, however, he was told that he must join or financially support the SEIU or be fired. To avoid being fired, Ansari paid fees to the union, despite his sincere religious beliefs. Ansari is invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminating against an individual based on his or her religious beliefs.

On October 1st last year, Ansari sent a letter to Boston College and the SEIU informing them of how his religious beliefs conflict with joining or financially supporting the union. He asked that his union fees be diverted to charity instead of being sent to the union, which is a long-established remedy for such a conflict. Instead of responding, the college continued to take a cut of his paycheck and send it to SEIU officials in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

In January this year Ansari filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the college and union officials, and the EEOC determined this summer that both Boston College and the SEIU had violated Title VII. In September, the EEOC gave Ansari a right-to-sue letter, which authorized him to file a lawsuit under Title VII against the college and the union.

Consequently, Foundation staff attorneys today filed a lawsuit on Ansari’s behalf against Boston College and the SEIU for illegally discriminating against Ansari for failing to reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs in violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit further alleges that because Boston College made paycheck deductions for the SEIU despite Ansari’s notice of religious objections, and because Ansari would have been fired if he did not pay the fees, their actions constitute quid pro quo religious harassment.

The lawsuit asks that the college and SEIU local pay all fees deducted from Ansari’s paycheck to a charity mutually agreed upon and pay Ansari for damages for the emotional distress he has suffered while his rights have been violated for more than a year. It also asks the court to prevent the college from continuing to discriminate against his religious beliefs and asks that the union be required to inform workers that those with religious objections to the payment of union fees are entitled to pay those fees to a charity instead.

“Workers who have sincere religious objections to joining or funding a union are legally protected from being forced to violate their conscience,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “No one should ever be forced to choose between keeping a job to provide for their family and violating their deeply held religious beliefs by supporting a union.”

“Ultimately, a Right to Work law that makes all union payments voluntary is the best solution to this type of illegal discrimination. That way, all workers who object to funding union activities are free to cut off such payments whether or not the nature of their opposition to the union is faith-based,” added Mix.

19 Nov 2019

Mark Janus Files Motion Seeking Entire Seventh Circuit Appeals Court to Rehear Ruling Denying Refund of Unconstitutionally Seized Forced Union Fees

Posted in News Releases

Petition for rehearing en banc filed after three-judge panel ruled that union bosses may keep dues taken from public employees in violation of the First Amendment

Washington, DC (November 19, 2019) – Today, attorneys representing Mark Janus are petitioning the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing en banc in the continuation of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31. Janus seeks a ruling from the court requiring AFSCME union officials to return thousands of dollars in dues that they seized from his paycheck in violation of his First Amendment rights.

Janus, a former Illinois child support specialist who was never a member of AFSCME, won a landmark decision at the U.S. Supreme Court last June with free legal aid from the Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. That ruling recognized that requiring public employees to fund union activities violates the First Amendment, and further found that the government should not collect such fees absent an employee’s “affirmative and knowing” consent. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that compulsory fees “[violate] the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”

Janus’ case continues as he seeks the return of fees that AFSCME union bosses seized from his paycheck without his consent since March 23, 2013. Janus’ petition for rehearing en banc comes after a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled earlier this month that AFSCME officials could keep the union fees from his paycheck.

The ruling in favor of AFSCME union officials is despite the Supreme Court never suggesting that Janus only requires prospective relief for affected workers. In fact, the High Court noted in Janus that union officials have been “on notice” for years that mandatory fees likely would not comply with the High Court’s heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny articulated in the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court decision, won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

If the petition is granted, Janus’ case will be heard before 12 judges of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable ruling in the case could have a massive impact, setting a federal precedent that would be cited in dozens of other cases seeking refunds of dues taken unlawfully by public sector union bosses. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are currently litigating more than 30 Janus-related cases that collectively seek over $120 million in refunds, including several cases filed jointly with attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center.

“Mark Janus is simply asking the Seventh Circuit to remedy the years of unconstitutional conduct AFSCME bosses have perpetrated at his and other public sector workers’ expense,” observed National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “Union bosses’ arguments do not change the fact that unions around the country are still flush with dues money that was seized in violation of public employees’ First Amendment rights.”

“Mark Janus and other government employees like him were deprived of millions of dollars while the unions took their money,” said Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center. “It is critical for the entire Seventh Circuit to consider how Mark is finally made whole after AFSCME illegally took money from him and violated his constitutional rights for years.”

“The Supreme Court agrees with me – the union was wrong to take money out of my paycheck without my permission,” said Mark Janus, plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME. “The union knew what it was doing was wrong. The union shouldn’t get to profit from behavior that the Court recognized as unconstitutional.”

17 Nov 2019

Foundation Defends Medicaid Providers from Big Labor Dues Skimming Schemes

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Union bosses and allied states defy Foundation-backed federal protections for homecare providers

Under Harris v. Quinn, brought for plaintiff Pam Harris (right) who cares for her son Josh in their home, providers cannot be required to pay union dues; however union bosses continue to skim dues from Medicaid funds in violation of federal law.

Under Harris v. Quinn, brought for plaintiff Pam Harris (right) who cares for her son Josh in their home, providers cannot be required to pay union dues; however union bosses continue to skim dues from Medicaid funds in violation of federal law.

SAN DIEGO, CA – At the urging of the National Right to Work Foundation and comments filed by over 1,200 Foundation supporters, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued a rule that closed an Obama-era loophole allowing union bosses to skim over $1 billion in union dues and fees from Medicaid payments intended for providers.

Unsurprisingly, union bosses are refusing to accept this rule and comply with federal law. As a result, Foundation staff attorneys have ramped up legal action in an effort to force Big Labor to end its unlawful schemes to divert union dues from payments to Medicaid providers.

Foundation Files Class Action Lawsuit for California Homecare Providers

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and the West Coast-based Freedom Foundation, a group of California homecare providers filed a class action lawsuit after union officials continued seizing union dues from their Medicaid payments.

The providers allege in their suit that the deduction of union dues from their Medicaid payments violates the provision of the federal Medicaid statute that prohibits the diversion of Medicaid monies to persons or institutions that are not providing services to disabled individuals.

Union officials used a special exemption to Medicaid regulations granted to them by the Obama Administration in 2014 as legal cover for this skim scheme.

In August 2018, the National Right to Work Foundation submitted formal comments to U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) supporting the agency’s proposal to clarify that the diversion of Medicaid payments from providers to third parties, including unions, violates federal law. Those recommendations were adopted in early May and were set to go into effect on July 5, 2019.

In addition to violating federal Medicaid law, the providers charge union officials with violating their legal rights by unlawfully restricting them from stopping payment of union dues and fees, as is their right under the landmark Foundation-won Harris v. Quinn and Janus v. AFSCME decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the providers attempted to exercise their legal rights under Harris and Janus to refrain from financially subsidizing a union and cut off any further dues or fees deductions, union officials refused to honor their requests. Despite the lack of valid consent by providers, the California State Controller, at the behest of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union officials, continued to deduct union dues from the Medicaid funds intended for providers.

“Once again union bosses have ignored federal law, legal precedent and the clear wishes of the workers they claim to ‘represent’ simply to line their pockets with compulsory dues,” said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Instead of informing workers of their First Amendment rights and allowing them to choose whether to pay dues to a union voluntarily, union officials nationwide are attempting to trap workers into paying forced dues.”

Medicaid Providers Move to Defend Rule Ending Illegal Union Medicaid Skim

In a separate legal action, ten Medicaid providers, with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Freedom Foundation, moved to intervene in a recently filed federal lawsuit challenging the rule adopted by HHS. The providers support the Trump Administration’s rule because it helps to protect their right not to fund union activities in violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue repealing the rule would result in their legal rights being violated.

AFSCME and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials and the pro-Big Labor Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington State filed this challenge to the Trump rule in May.

Although a federal circuit court judge denied the providers’ motion to intervene, the judge granted National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys the ability to file a brief in the case. The providers’ Foundation staff attorneys can appeal the decision to deny the providers’ motion to intervene should the judge rule against the Trump Administration and strike down the rule.

“Providers are right to oppose this lawsuit’s blatant attempt to enable union bosses to skim union dues in violation of federal law and deserve a voice in this lawsuit,” said Semmens. “The hysterical response by Big Labor and its political allies to this simple clarification of longstanding federal law suggests they are worried that many members union officials claim to represent won’t pay dues once they realize they have a choice.”

12 Nov 2019

Ohio School Bus Driver Wins Settlement Against OAPSE Union Bosses Securing Refund of Dues Seized in Violation of Janus First Amendment Rights

Posted in News Releases

OAPSE officials back down when faced with bus driver’s federal lawsuit challenging union’s “escape period” policy as violation of Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision

Cincinnati, OH (November 12, 2019) — With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Ripley Union Lewis Huntington School District bus driver Donna Fizer has just won a settlement requiring Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME Local 4 (OAPSE) union bosses to refund to her dues they seized from her paycheck in violation of her First Amendment rights.

Fizer’s victory comes after she hit OAPSE officials with a federal lawsuit contending that dues seizures they had made from her paycheck after she resigned her union membership infringed her rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Janus, which the High Court issued in June 2018, mandates that no public employee can be required to pay union fees as a condition of employment, and that union fees can only be collected from a public employee with an “affirmative and knowing” waiver of his or her First Amendment rights.

Fizer notified school board officials in September 2018 that she was “immediately withdrawing [her union] membership” and exercising her First Amendment Janus right to cut off union dues deductions. The school district treasurer quickly complied and stopped the deductions from her paycheck, but OAPSE bosses responded by filing a grievance which alleged that Fizer could not revoke except within a tiny, union-created “escape period” that occurs only 10 days every few years. OAPSE officials demanded in the grievance that the district “make OAPSE whole for all lost dues” and continue to take dues from her wages.

Though the district initially rebuffed the union’s request and responded that “the district will honor the Supreme Court ‘Janus Decision,’” later arbitration proceedings forced by OAPSE upheld the enforcement of the narrow “escape period.” The arbitrator ordered the district to continue seizing dues from Fizer’s paycheck and to seize an additional sum to “make OAPSE whole” for the time period in which the district honored Fizer’s Janus request and stopped deductions.

Fizer fought back by filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio with free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys. The complaint argued that OAPSE’s “escape period” imposed an illegal hindrance on public employees’ ability to exercise their First Amendment rights under Janus.

Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys and the Janus precedent in federal court, union officials settled the case. OAPSE bosses have returned to Fizer all the dues they took from her paycheck since the date of her membership revocation, and have notified the district to “cease any further deduction of union dues from her paycheck.”

Foundation staff attorneys have been at the forefront of the fight to defend public employees’ rights under Janus, currently litigating over two dozen cases around the country to enforce the landmark decision. Most recently, Foundation staff attorneys won a settlement for New Mexico information technology worker David McCutcheon and his coworkers, who collectively received over $15,000 in refunds of dues seized by Communications Workers of America (CWA) bosses in violation of their Janus rights.

“Ms. Fizer’s win should serve as another reminder that public sector union bosses cannot legally limit public employees’ First Amendment rights through ‘escape periods’ and other similar schemes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation will continue to offer free legal aid so workers can bring more lawsuits to ensure that public employees’ Janus rights are fully enforced.”

10 Nov 2019

Supreme Court Asked to Hear Challenge to Monopoly Bargaining Scheme

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, September/October 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Massachusetts educators can only affect their working conditions if they waive their First Amendment rights


Plaintiffs Dr. Andre Melcuk (left) and Dr. Wm. Curtis Conner (right) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case challenging Massachusetts’ government union monopoly bargaining scheme as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In July staff attorneys for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, a lawsuit brought by four Massachusetts educators challenging the application of the state’s union monopoly bargaining law as a violation of their constitutional rights.

The educators argue that the state law, which is manipulated by union bosses to block teachers who are not union members from voting or otherwise voicing their opinions in the determination of their own working conditions, illegally deprives non-member teachers of their First Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs Say NEA Teacher Union Bosses Violated First Amendment Rights

The four plaintiffs hail from the University of Massachusetts and the Hanover School Committee. Each has their own reasons for rejecting membership in the National Education Association (NEA) and its local affiliates. While the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision guarantees that union fees and membership are strictly voluntary for all public sector workers, the policy in question unconstitutionally forces them to become full union members just to be able to impact their work environment.

To have any say in their own work conditions, non-members like the four educators would have to waive their First Amendment rights under Janus and join the union, which means paying full union dues and funding union boss political activities.

Four Massachusetts Educators Ask Supreme Court to Apply Janus Precedent

The lead plaintiff, Dr. Ben Branch, is a longtime finance professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is a colleague of fellow plaintiff Dr. Wm. Curtis Conner, who teaches chemistry there.

Plaintiff Dr. Andre Melcuk is Director of Departmental Information Technology at the Silvio O. Conte National Center for Polymer Research at the University. Dr. Melcuk was born in the Soviet Union and opposes the union based on his dislike of collectivist organizations.

Plaintiff Deborah Curran is a long-term teacher in the Hanover Public Schools system. The union officials who supposedly “represent” her attempted to invalidate her promotion to a position mentoring new teachers and pushed to have her investigated and suspended. She ultimately spent nearly $35,000 of her own money battling union officials just to protect her job.

The petition comes after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided the case against the group in April.

“The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s refusal to apply the Janus ruling has left these educators facing a legally untenable situation: Either they can avoid associating with a union with which they disagree and lose their voices in the workplace, or they can waive their Janus rights and have their money used for ideological causes they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The state of Massachusetts is forcing these educators to fund state legislators’ union political allies if they want even the most limited participation in the government created bargaining process that controls their conditions of employment.”

“Such schemes border on extortion and it’s time for courts to acknowledge it,” added Mix.

7 Nov 2019

Labor Board to Prosecute NNOC Union for Violating Texas Nurse’s Rights, Union Forced to Settle Other Charge for Ripping Down Nurse’s Posters

Posted in News Releases

National Labor Relations Board complaint says union officials are illegally refusing to turn over to worker a secret agreement between the employer and union bosses

Fort Worth, TX (November 7, 2019) — National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have won a settlement against the National Nurses Organizing Committee/Texas-National Nurses United union for Esther Marissa Zamora, a nurse at a hospital who was trying to educate her co-workers about unions, only to have her informational material seized by union officials. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also issued a complaint against the union for refusing to give Zamora a copy of a “neutrality agreement” entered into by union officials and her employer.

Zamora works for Corpus Christi Medical Center-HCA in Corpus Christi, Texas, where unions hold monopoly bargaining power over the nurses. According to Zamora’s charge, she was informing her co-workers about the effects of unionization, only to have union officials rip down or confiscate her educational materials.

Faced with Zamora’s evidence, union officials agreed to settle that part of the case and now must post workplace notices that inform all workers about their rights to not join unions. The notices, which the union is required to post for 60 days, also tell workers that the NNOC/Texas-NNU will not “restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the above rights” and “will not confiscate or remove any employee’s flyers related to the union and/or union decertification efforts.”

On October 30, NLRB Region 16 in Fort Worth also issued a formal complaint against the union for refusing to turn over to Zamora a so-called “neutrality agreement” created in secret between the hospital chain where she works and the NNOC/NNU union officials. As an employee, Zamora is entitled to any agreements that the NNOC/NNU union makes with her employer.

So-called neutrality agreements often include special protections for union bosses that allow them access to workers on site and prevent the employer from voicing any opposition to unionization attempts. Some such agreements include promises by union officials to limit contract demands, in some cases even agreeing to wage or benefit limitations in exchange for company assistance in organizing workers.

In this case, Zamora argues that she is entitled to the secret agreement between her employer and NNOC/NNU because it controls her and other employee’s terms and conditions of employment by limiting how the hospital can deal with the union. Zamora’s unfair labor practice charge alleged that union officials accepted “unlawful support and assistance from the employer.”

As part of the NLRB’s complaint about the neutrality agreement, the Regional Office set a hearing date for January 27, 2020 before an NLRB administrative law judge.

“It is telling that union bosses are determined to keep rank-and-file nurses in the dark about the terms of the backroom deal the union struck with hospital officials in exchange for company assistance in organizing these nurses,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “So-called ‘neutrality agreements’ often sell-out workers to advance the interests of greedy union bosses, which is probably why the union refuses to disclose it to a nurse whom they know is educating her co-workers about the effects of unionization in her workplace.”