22 Jan 2007

Teacher Challenges Constitutionality of Ohio Law Forcing Public Employees to Pay Union Dues Unless Members of State-Approved Rel

Posted in News Releases

**Columbus, OH (January 22, 2007)** — A St. Marys-area teacher today filed a federal complaint challenging the constitutionality of a statewide law denying public employees the right to a religious objection to paying union dues if they do not belong to certain state-approved religions.

With free legal help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Carol Katter, a 21-year veteran teacher in the St. Marys school district, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division. Katter filed the complaint against top officials of the Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB) for religious discrimination in enforcing the contested statute.

SERB officials cannot claim ignorance, as the agency had recently been an incidental party to an earlier investigation and lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice and National Right to Work Foundation attorneys involving similar actions.

Katter filed a related charge this week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union, state affiliate of the National Education Association, challenging an attempt by union officials to divert her forced dues to the local union rather than a charity.

The federal court complaint spells out that, even though Katter is a lifelong Catholic, she was denied her right to an adequate religious accommodation. Katter believes that failing to divert her forced dues from the union contradicts her beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for abortion on demand.

Further still, an OEA union official told Katter that she must “change religions” in order to receive a religious accommodation before SERB. Katter’s complaint cites that the state’s discriminatory statute amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and seeks a federal injunction prohibiting SERB from further enforcing the law against other state employees.

“Carol Katter’s struggle underscores that Ohio employees still face an uphill battle when objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Until Ohio passes a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary, such abuses will inevitably continue.”

Katter’s charge follows a federal court decree issued last fall that re-affirmed 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. That decree stemmed from another Foundation-assisted case challenging similar systematic religious discrimination throughout Ohio. However, for technical reasons, Ohio’s SERB itself was not formally bound by that decree even though it was well aware of its existence.

17 Jan 2007

SEIU and ResCare Health Giant Face Second Round of Federal Charges for Illegally Forcing Unionization on Workers throughout West

Posted in News Releases

**Buckhannon, WV (January 17, 2007)** – Esther Gearhart, a ResCare, Inc. assisted living employee filed federal labor board charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 and ResCare for their attempts to force unwanted unionization on health care employees all across West Virginia.

Gearhart filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 6 offices in Pittsburgh, PA, with assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. The unfair labor practice charges ask for an injunction to block the union and ResCare from continuing their unlawful activities, and they detail multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act by SEIU officials and ResCare.

Gearhart’s charge is the second such charge filed by ResCare employees with help from Foundation attorneys in recent weeks. In late December, Foundation attorneys helped employees in the Princeton area file charges to block similar unlawful union organizing activities. Employee reports also signal similar activities occurring across the state border in Ohio.
As part of an agreement kept secret from employees, ResCare executives agreed to abandon even the limited protections offered to employees under an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election in choosing whether to unionize. Instead the agreement imposed a coercive “card check” procedure, in which union organizers can browbeat employees individually to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is controversial for severely curtailing workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize.

The “card check” procedure used at ResCare is part of a larger misnamed “neutrality agreement” designed to have the employer assist union organizers in pushing workers into the union’s ranks. Under such agreements, the company commonly must give union officials unfettered access to workers on company property and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees, resulting in home visits from groups of union organizers. Such agreements also often contain a “gag rule” preventing employers from discussing any potential impact of unionization on employees.

In exchange for agreeing to assist the union with the card check scheme, ResCare executives received concessions from SEIU officials, including an agreed upon contract to be foisted upon the employees once the unionization is complete. Such “pre-recognition bargaining” clearly violates federal law, yet the SEIU and ResCare are now rolling out this scheme all over West Virginia, and possibly Ohio as well.

“Union officials sold out the interests of the very workers they sought to ‘represent’ in order to force unionization and compulsory dues upon them,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union organizers’ illegal behavior shows that they don’t respect the rights of the workers; it’s all about the money.”

17 Jan 2007

ESPN/ABC Cameraman Challenges Pervasive Entertainment Industry Practice of Forcing Union Membership on Part-Time and Freelance C

Posted in News Releases

**Fort Worth, TX (January 17, 2007)** – A television cameraman employed as a “daily hire” for the Walt Disney Company (ABC) through its subsidiary ESPN Television filed federal charges against the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) Local 41 union challenging a pervasive practice in the entertainment industry of forcing union membership on part-time and freelance independent contractors. The cameraman also filed charges against the Chicago-based union for threatening to have him fired for refusing to pay thousands of dollars in compulsory union dues.

Donald J. Geist filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after receiving multiple letters from NABET officials demanding that he join the union, pay a $1500 “initiation fee,” and then pay monthly forced dues in the amount of $125. When Geist refused to pay, union officials sent a letter to Geist’s sometimes employer ABC, threatening that their business relationship would end and that he would be blacklisted from future work.

The NLRB charges, filed by Geist with the assistance of National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, show multiple violations of federal labor law by NABET officials. As a daily hire Geist should not be subject to compulsory union membership because he is never employed for thirty consecutive days, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Because he has never been employed continuously by ABC for 30 days, Geist cannot be subjected to compulsory union dues. Yet the contract that NABET union officials reached with ABC is illegal on its face because it requires employees to pay forced dues after only 20 non-continuous days of employment in any year or 30 days within two years.

Despite being facially invalid, requirements of this nature are commonplace in the entertainment industry. Often union officials use threats of blacklisting such workers from future work to press them into paying union dues in violation of federal law.

“The disgraceful behavior by NABET union officials shows just how far they will go to force people to pay up or lose their jobs – even if that means completely disregarding the rights of the individual workers they claim to represent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Unfortunately, this case is not an anomaly. All around the country employees in the entertainment industry are having unionization forced on them whether they like it or not.”

Even if Geist could have been subjected to the contract in the first place, his NLRB charge also lays out that union officials didn’t follow requirements handed down by the US Supreme Court in the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck case designed to ensure that employees’ right to object to paying forced union dues used for union political expenditures, lobbying, and organizing is protected.

10 Jan 2007

Legal Foundation for Petitioners in First Amendment Battle Comment on Today’s Supreme Court Oral Argument

Posted in News Releases

Washington, DC (January 10, 2007)Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Davenport v. Washington Education Association. The Foundation is a non-profit organization providing free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse, and whose staff attorneys filed the case in 2003 and successfully appealed the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of lead petitioner Gary Davenport and 4,000 other nonunion Washington State teachers.

“The Davenport case is a defensive battle that underscores how labor law is a stacked deck against the individual. In the 28 states without Right to Work laws, millions of employees are forced to choose between paying dues to a union they do not support and losing their job. Washington is one of these states.

“This case is a legal rescue mission that should have never been necessary. In responding to a law trying to limit this abuse, an activist ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court created from whole cloth a constitutional ‘right’ for union officials to spend dues taken from nonunion employees on politics. This precedent could cause sweeping damage to employee rights across America.

“The underlying campaign finance law – known as ‘paycheck protection’ – had been totally ineffective. Because of its fatally narrow definition of what constitutes a political expenditure, it cannot provide meaningful relief to employees forced to pay union dues.

“The real solution is to take away union officials’ special privilege to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

“But we cannot allow the Washington court to use this ineffective law as a platform to cause sweeping damage to the First Amendment. If this activist ruling is upheld, even Right to Work laws could come under attack.

“Fortunately, there is a silver lining to this otherwise defensive battle. The Washington Court ruling has presented a major opportunity for the cause of employee freedom.

“National Right to Work Foundation attorneys representing the Petitioning teachers have asked the Justices to correct a problem flowing from a 45 year-old-ruling by this court. In a case that involved union members, this court said 45 years ago that employee ‘dissent is not to be presumed.’ Using this as justification, unions have set up cumbersome opt-out procedures to prevent nonunion members from paying anything less than full union dues.

“But the U.S. Supreme Court can now put a stop to it. National Right to Work attorneys are asking that the Supreme Court take the simple step of clarifying that when employees say no to union membership, they indeed ‘dissent’ from the union!

“This simple clarification – that ‘no’ indeed means ‘no’ – would sweep away the union objection procedures, and nonunion members would be entitled to an automatic reduction in their dues by several hundred dollars. Where employees do not enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, they could still legally be forced to pay the cost of union bargaining.

“Since there are at least a million nonunion members in America that are forced to pay dues – a ruling on this point would nevertheless be a major breakthrough for employee rights.

“We hope the U.S. Supreme Court gives employees the help that they need in protecting their rights against the tyranny of compulsory unionism.”

To schedule an interview – or for more information –
call Justin Hakes at 571-243-3637.

10 Jan 2007

Legal Counsel for Petitioners in First Amendment Battle Comment on Supreme Court Oral Argument

Posted in News Releases

**Washington, DC (January 10, 2007)** – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in *Davenport v. Washington Education Association*. The Foundation is a non-profit organization providing free legal aid to victims of compulsory unionism abuse, and whose staff attorneys filed the case in 2003 and successfully appealed the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of lead petitioner Gary Davenport and 4,000 other nonunion Washington State teachers.

“The *Davenport* case is a defensive battle that underscores how labor law is a stacked deck against the individual. In the 28 states without Right to Work laws, millions of employees are forced to choose between paying dues to a union they do not support and losing their job. Washington is one of these states.

“This case is a legal rescue mission that should have never been necessary. In responding to a law trying to limit this abuse, an activist ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court created from whole cloth a constitutional ‘right’ for union officials to spend dues taken from nonunion employees on politics. This precedent could cause sweeping damage to employee rights across America.

“The underlying campaign finance law – known as ‘paycheck protection’ – had been totally ineffective. Because of its fatally narrow definition of what constitutes a political expenditure, it cannot provide meaningful relief to employees forced to pay union dues.

“The real solution is to take away union officials’ special privilege to force employees to pay union dues just to get or keep a job.

“But we cannot allow the Washington court to use this ineffective law as a platform to cause sweeping damage to the First Amendment. If this activist ruling is upheld, even Right to Work laws could come under attack.

“Fortunately, there is a silver lining to this otherwise defensive battle. The Washington Court ruling has presented a major opportunity for the cause of employee freedom.

“National Right to Work Foundation attorneys representing the Petitioning teachers have asked the Justices to correct a problem flowing from a 45 year-old-ruling by this court. In a case that involved union members, this court said 45 years ago that employee ‘dissent is not to be presumed.’ Using this as justification, unions have set up cumbersome opt-out procedures to prevent nonunion members from paying anything less than full union dues.

“But the U.S. Supreme Court can now put a stop to it. National Right to Work attorneys are asking that the Supreme Court take the simple step of clarifying that when employees say no to union membership, they indeed ‘dissent’ from the union!

“This simple clarification – that ‘no’ indeed means ‘no’ – would sweep away the union objection procedures, and nonunion members would be entitled to an automatic reduction in their dues by several hundred dollars. Where employees do not enjoy the protections of a Right to Work law, they could still legally be forced to pay the cost of union bargaining.

“Since there are at least a million nonunion members in America that are forced to pay dues – a ruling on this point would nevertheless be a major breakthrough for employee rights.

“We hope the U.S. Supreme Court gives employees the help that they need in protecting their rights against the tyranny of compulsory unionism.”

8 Jan 2007

Supreme Court Media Availability: Lead Plaintiff and Legal Counsel to Appear After Argument in Key First Amendment Battle

Posted in News Releases

**Washington, DC** – Wednesday morning, January 10, at approximately 11:00 a.m. EST the U.S. States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the cases of Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA) and Washington v. WEA. The High Court will decide whether to overturn a Washington State Supreme Court decision that discovered a “right” for union officials to spend nonunion employees’ forced union dues on politics.

If this unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment is allowed to stand, it will represent a major step backwards for the rights of unionized employees, and it could lead to legal attacks on America’s 22 state Right to Work laws which ban forced union dues. On the other hand, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys also seek a ruling that would strike down union opt-out procedures imposed on nonunion employees nationwide who are forced to pay union dues as a job condition.

**What**: Media availability directly following Supreme Court oral arguments in Davenport v. WEA and Washington v. WEA

**When**: Approximately Noon EST (at the conclusion of oral arguments)
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

**Where**: Immediately at the base of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street NE
Washington, DC 20543-0001

**Who**:
*Mark Mix*, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is providing free legal aid to the Davenport teacher plaintiffs

*Milton Chappell*, National Right to Work Foundation Staff Attorney and Lead Counsel for 4,000 nonunion teachers in Davenport v. WEA

*Gary Davenport*, Lead Petitioner in Davenport v. WEA

**Why**: As the only national organization dedicated solely to protecting workers from abuses of compulsory unionism, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is the foremost expert in this important area of the law.

For more information or for press materials contact Justin Hakes at (571) 243-3637.

3 Jan 2007

Media Advisory: Lead Plaintiff and Legal Foundation in Upcoming Supreme Court First Amendment Battle Available for Interviews

Posted in News Releases

Washington, DC – Leading up to oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA) and Washington v. WEA on Wednesday January 10, 2007, National Right to Work Foundation spokesmen and lead plaintiff Gary Davenport are available to discuss the cases with the media. At stake is whether the High Court will overturn a Washington State Supreme Court decision that created a “First Amendment right” for union officials to spend nonunion employees’ forced union dues on politics. If this unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment is allowed to stand, it will represent a major step backwards for the rights of unionized employees, and it could lead to legal attacks on America’s 22 state Right to Work laws, which ban forced union dues.

### What:
Advance media availability for interviews leading up to Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Davenport v. WEA, and Washington v. WEA – the most prominent cases to be argued this month.

### When:
Between now and January 10, 2007

### Who:
Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation which is providing free legal aid to the Davenport teacher plaintiffs

Gary Davenport, Lead Petitioner in Davenport v. WEA

### Where:
In studio in the Washington, DC-area, via satellite, or via telephone

### Why:
As the only national organization dedicated solely to protecting workers from abuses of compulsory unionism, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is the foremost expert in this important area of the law. Gleason will be able to address to the direct implications of Davenport v. WEA, and Washington v. WEA, as well as the long term implications for the struggle by nonunion workers against compulsory unionism. Davenport will also be able to discuss the employee perspective of the cases.

To schedule an interview or for more information, contact Justin Hakes at (571) 243-3637, or Patrick Ashby at (703) 770-3306.

26 Dec 2006

SEIU Union and ResCare Health Giant Hit With Federal Charges for Illegally Forcing Unionization on Workers

Posted in News Releases

Princeton, WV (December 26, 2006) – Walter Coeburn, a ResCare, Inc. assisted living employee filed federal labor board charges against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) District 1199 and ResCare for their attempts to force unwanted unionization on Coeburn, his co-workers and employees all across West Virginia.

Coeburn filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 11 offices in Winston Salem, NC, with assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys. The unfair labor practice charges ask for an injunction to block the union and ResCare from continuing their unlawful activities, and they detail multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act by SEIU officials and ResCare.

As part of an agreement kept secret from employees, ResCare executives agreed to abandon even the limited protections offered to employees under a NLRB-supervised secret ballot election and instead impose a coercive “card check” procedure, in which union organizers can browbeat employees individually to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization.

Because of the prevalence of union intimidation tactics directed at employees, card check is controversial for severely curtailing workers’ freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to unionize. Consequently, the organizing scheme has sparked numerous legal cases documenting coercive activities by union organizers, including threats, bribes, and stalkings of rank-and-file workers. In this case, witnesses said that SEIU organizers lied to many employees by stating that signing the cards was only a request “to get more information.”

The “card check” procedure used at ResCare is part of a larger misnamed “neutrality and card check agreement” designed to have the employer assist union organizers in pushing workers into the union’s ranks. Under such agreements, the company commonly must give union officials unfettered access to workers on company property and the home addresses and phone numbers of employees, resulting in menacing home visits from groups of union organizers. Also, such agreements usually include a “gag rule” preventing the employer from commenting on any potential impact of unionization.

In exchange for agreeing to assist the union with the card check scheme, ResCare executives received concessions from SEIU officials, including an agreed upon contract to be foisted upon the employees once the card check unionization was complete. Such “pre-recognition bargaining” clearly violates federal law, yet the SEIU and ResCare are now rolling this scheme out all over West Virginia and Ohio.

“Union officials sold out the interests of the very workers they sought to ‘represent’ in order to force unionization and compulsory dues on these employees,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Union organizers’ illegal behavior shows that they don’t respect the rights of the workers; they just want the forced union dues revenue.”

In response to their ill treatment, Coeburn and his colleagues conducted a decertification drive to throw out the unwanted union. A majority of employees in the bargaining unit have signed a petition asking the NLRB to conduct an election to determine if the SEIU really has the majority employee support it claims.

19 Dec 2006

Teamsters Union Faces Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fines Levied Against Ryerson Employees

Posted in News Releases

**Chicago, IL (December 19, 2006)** – A group of ten Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. employees filed a wave of federal charges against the Teamsters Local 714 union today after union officials vindictively fined them for refusing to walk off the job during a Teamsters-mandated strike.

The metal processing workers obtained free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation to file the unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), because Teamsters union officials illegally failed to notify the workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and then issued retaliatory fines – some over $1,000 apiece – for continuing to work during the strike in March of this year.

Because the Teamsters hierarchy unlawfully failed to inform the workers of their right to refrain from formal union membership and to object to paying for the union’s nonrepresentational activities, such as politics, the employees thus cannot be considered voluntary members – and are not legally subject to internal union disciplinary measures, such as strike fines.

“These Teamsters officials went to great lengths to intimidate and stifle dissent,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hierarchy has little regard for employees who want to support their families rather than toe the union line during an unpopular strike.”

The actions of Teamsters union officials violate employee rights recognized under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court *Communications Workers v. Beck* decision. Under *Beck* and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials must inform employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and observe their right not to pay for costs unrelated to collective bargaining.

“Unfortunately, as long as Illinois workers labor without the protections of a Right to Work law – which makes union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary – abuses of this nature will surely continue throughout the Prairie State,” said Gleason.

15 Dec 2006

National Right to Work Foundation Announces Addition of New Attorney to Expert Legal Staff

Posted in News Releases

**Springfield, VA (December 15, 2006)** – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation announced today that it has hired Matthew C. Muggeridge, a newly sworn in member of the Maryland State Bar and graduate of the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Matthew C. Muggeridge brings to National Right to Work a real commitment to helping employees fight back against the abuses of compulsory unionism,” said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

As the newest of the Foundation’s ten staff attorneys, Muggeridge will help build on the Foundation’s successful litigation record on behalf of union-abused workers that includes 13 cases at the United States Supreme Court. Currently National Right to Work staff attorneys are representing 4,000 teachers in the case of *Davenport v. WEA*, which is scheduled to be argued before the High Court in January.

As a fluent Spanish speaker, Muggeridge’s addition to the staff increases the Foundation’s ability to aid Spanish speaking workers that have been victimized by compulsory unionism abuses. Additionally, Muggeridge will assist the Foundation’s cutting-edge efforts to curb workers’ rights abuses under coercive “card-check” or “top-down” union organizing schemes.

In recent years, Foundation attorneys have persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to re-evaluate the legality of these increasingly abusive union organizing tactics and have utilized cutting-edge legal strategies to protect employees from these coercive tactics which deny employees basic protections in choosing whether to unionize.

Prior to joining the Foundation, Muggeridge served as a Senior Associate for the High Park Advocacy Group in Toronto, Canada. Muggeridge also spent a year teaching at Dulwich College in London, England.

Muggeridge holds a Bachelors of Philosophy degree from Gregorian University where he graduated summa cum laude. He also holds a Post Graduate Degree in Education from King’s College in London.