11 Jan 2006

VIDEO: Stefan Gleason discusses NEA Political Spending

Posted in News Releases

/video/Gleason-FNC-Jan-9-06.mov

9 Jan 2006

Teamsters Local Hit with Federal Charges for Violating UPS Workers’ Rights with Unlawful Forced Union Dues Seizures

Posted in News Releases

Dayton, OH (January 9, 2006) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a United Parcel Service (UPS) employee has filed federal charges against a Teamsters local for violating the constitutional rights of workers who have refrained from formal union membership.

Rick Ford filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 office in Cincinnati, after Teamsters Local 957 officials improperly deducted forced union dues from Ford’s paychecks without giving him a proper independent breakdown of how his forced union dues are spent. Because Ford has exercised his right to refrain from formal union membership, by law he can only be required to pay the portion of dues that union officials can demonstrate is used for collective bargaining. Ford filed the charges for all similarly situated UPS workers.

“Teamsters union officials are blatantly defying the law in order to stuff their political coffers with even more forced dues,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Union officials are adding insult to injury by forcing non-member workers to foot the bill for their pet political causes when the workers are already forced to pay for monopoly bargaining representation that they may not even want.”

In the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision Communications Workers v. Beck, the Court affirmed that workers have the right to resign from formal union membership and halt and reclaim the portion of forced union dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as union politics. Employees also have the right to have an independent third party audit the union expenditures and certify that the percentage of dues that non-members are forced to pay does not include political spending and other non-collective bargaining expenses.

In Ford’s case, Teamsters’ union officials are forcing non-member employees to pay fees at the extraordinary rate of 91.85% of full member dues, and they are doing so without a proper accounting and without providing an adequate process through which non-members can challenge the amount.

The NLRB Regional Director in Cincinnati will now investigate and decide whether to issue a formal complaint against the union.

3 Jan 2006

WSJ: Why Not Liberate the American Worker

Posted in News Releases

Despite the hue and cry about the demise of their movement, union officials must be quietly relieved. The AFL-CIO’s breakaway unions are urging the use of aggressive organizing methods, some of them approved by rulings of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Bill Clinton — and others contrary to the law altogether. Meanwhile, the window of opportunity for the Bush administration to reverse this course is rapidly closing.

The five-member NLRB administers the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 — collectively known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA, which governs labor-management relations in the private sector, grants a series of special privileges to union officials; the board administers the law, including the setting of rules for organizing drives and collective bargaining.

In the late 1990s, the Clinton-majority NLRB overturned more than 50 long-standing precedents with activist rulings that, taken as a whole, diminished employer rights and free speech, increased union coercive privileges, entrenched incumbent unions, and sharply undercut the rights of employees who disagree with a union. A full five years into the Bush presidency, however, virtually all of these rulings remain in place, while seats on the NLRB that could be filled with Bush appointees have been left vacant for long periods of time.

Board Chairman Robert Battista says that the agency will not make decisions in “major cases” unless he has a three-member majority, and right now, he only has two votes. As a result, a host of major cases are languishing and important employee freedoms — to choose whether to unionize, or to stop the ongoing abuse of compulsory union dues for union political and ideological activities — are on hold.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that a swift recess appointment right now by President Bush could begin to reverse the damage done to the law during the Clinton years, enabling a three-member majority to issue long-awaited rulings.

Moreover, if, as expected, these rulings favor workers’ freedom over union power, some union chiefs will be very unhappy. That in turn would give Senate Republicans the leverage they need to force the Democrats — who have favored the current paralysis — to come to the bargaining table to allow the now-pending NLRB nominees Peter Kirsanow and Peter Schaumber to be confirmed.

One critical area involves the process by which unions get the exclusive right to represent employees in a workplace. The NLRA has established straightforward elections as the “gold standard” in determining whether employees want a union. Nevertheless, unions have increasingly used top-down organizing methods like the “card check” and so-called “neutrality agreements” which deny employees a secret ballot.

These methods work by pressuring employers to grant union operatives sweeping access to their workplaces, hand over employees’ personal information, and even hold mandatory “captive audience” speeches in which the employer actually encourages employees to support unionization. Workers are targeted by union operatives — at home or at work — to persuade them to sign union “authorization” cards that are counted as “votes” in favor of unionization.

Well beyond simple peer pressure, card-signing drives frequently involve threats and misrepresentations, sometimes prompting a legal backlash from targeted employees. As a result, last year a narrowly-divided NLRB voted to reconsider the agency’s practice of barring employees who find themselves unionized as the result of the “card-check” process from obtaining expedited secret ballot elections to decertify the union.

The leading “election bar” cases, now in limbo, were brought by employees of automotive suppliers Dana Corporation and Metaldyne, who obtained free legal assistance from my organization. Workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania-based plants, after having unionization imposed on them via “neutrality” agreements, filed decertification petitions to seek secret ballot elections that would determine whether the United Auto Workers (UAW) actually enjoys the support of a majority of employees. Through these cases, the NLRB could overturn its arbitrarily created rule that, once recognized, union officials may bargain with employers for a so-called “a reasonable period of time” — even up to one year — without any employee challenges.

Appearing at a Capitol Hill press conference — in support of legislation to guarantee that employees always have access to a secret ballot election introduced by Rep. Charlie Norwood, Dana employee Clarice Atherholt explained the basic issue: “We’re simply asking for a secret ballot vote so that we can have a say in our future without being intimidated or harassed.”

Nevertheless, top-down organizing methods are increasingly common in hotels, grocery stores, textiles and health care. In 2004 roughly 83% of all newly unionized workers were swept into union ranks without secret ballots. As one high-profile Service Employees International Union official confessed to this newspaper, “We don’t do elections.”

Numerous other important cases are collecting dust at the NLRB. One, pending since 1989, involves the Teamsters union and employees of a cheese processing company called Schreiber Foods in Wisconsin. The employees seek a ruling on whether federal labor law permits forcing workers to fund union organizing activities with mandatory dues. Another long-pending case filed against the UAW on behalf of a Colt Manufacturing employee in Connecticut would determine whether American workers who assert their right not to pay for union political activities must file written objections every single year — or simply once.

It’s time for the White House to get off the dime and install an NLRB majority to tackle these and other important cases. American workers cannot afford another three years of an NLRB that preserves some of the worst aspects of Bill Clinton’s legacy.

Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. This Article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2005.

23 Dec 2005

Employee Advocate Urges Attorney General Spitzer Not to Allow Amnesty to TWU Union Officials for Illegal Strike

Posted in News Releases

New York, N.Y. (December 23, 2005) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees suffering from compulsory unionism abuses, called on New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer today not to heed union officials’ calls for amnesty as part of the final settlement after those officials ordered the city’s illegal subway strike.

In his letter to Spitzer, Foundation President Mark Mix warned of routine union successes in gaining amnesty after illegal public sector strikes, pointing out that such actions result in even more public services being held hostage illegally to union demands. Mix also urged the Attorney General to enforce the law requiring that TWU officials lose their special privilege to use payroll deduction for union dues, seek enforcement of all fines against the union, seek imprisonment for contempt of court, and ultimately seek the firing of all responsible union officials who hold public employment in New York.

“The TWU has violated State law in a brazen attempt to hold New York City hostage to its self-serving demands,” stated Mix. “The TWU has not only endangered the safety and economic well-being of millions of metro area workers and residents, but it has done so with a blatant disregard for the transit employees it purports to protect.”

The Taylor Law requires the Attorney General to institute proceedings before the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) – if it does not do so on its own. State law obligates the Attorney General to demand that the PERB order the immediate forfeiture of the TWU’s special privilege to collect fees and dues from employees via payroll deduction.

“Furthermore, you should encourage State Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones to continue to hold TWU officials in contempt for their unashamed violation of his injunction order, and you should encourage enforcement and collection of all fines that he has already levied upon TWU officials as well as imprisonment of the union officials found in contempt,” Mix wrote.

“In addition, you should urge Governor Pataki to determine through an investigation whether any of the TWU officials who caused, instigated, encouraged, or condoned this unlawful strike are public employees. Governor Pataki should terminate any such union officials from their employment with State of New York, as provided for by law.

“To allow the TWU officials to escape unscathed from their callous and selfish disdain for the law will have dire consequences for the future of labor relations in New York State and will invariably result in more illegal strikes,” Mix concluded.

Mark Mix’s letter to New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is available here.

22 Dec 2005

Gallo Wine Employee Asks California Supreme Court to Allow Counting of Employee Ballots on Farm Workers Union

Posted in News Releases

San Francisco, Calif. (December 22, 2005) – With help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a grape picker employed by Gallo of Sonoma Wine appealed to the California State Supreme Court to order a counting of ballots cast by over 300 Gallo workers in a union decertification election that occurred nearly three years ago.

While the workers obtained an election to rid their workplace of the unwanted union, United Farm Workers of America (UFW) union officials have put a halt to a counting of the votes by filing unfair labor practice charges alleging unlawful employer interference.

Roberto Parra, a Gallo grape picker, appealed a perfunctory ruling by the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District not to review a decision by California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB). The ALRB had held – in conflict with related federal labor statutes – that minimal employer interference in an election could be grounds to throw out an election without ever ascertaining the employees’ wishes.

In 2003, Parra filed a petition for the decertification election, which would have removed the UFW union as the workers’ monopoly representative. Over 30% of the workers in the bargaining unit signed the petition requesting an election to throw out the unwanted union.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right. UFW union officials should not be allowed to thwart employee free choice because of a few technical violations by their employer,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Many Gallo workers want no part of this union, but UFW officials won’t take no for an answer and are abusing the process to maintain their privileged position.”

Foundation attorneys point out that the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act is modeled after the National Labor Relations Act, which proscribes that employer interference with an employee election must be substantial in order to justify that the result be set aside. While Parra does not dispute wrongdoing by Gallo officials leading up to the election, he cites that such behavior should not negate the exercise of the employees’ free will.

“The sins of the father should not be visited upon the children,” said Gleason.

If the decertification election ballots are counted and a majority of the employees voted against the union, UFW union officials would lose their special privilege to act as the monopoly bargaining representative of over 300 Gallo employees. Those workers then would be free to negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment and could be rewarded on their individual merit.

21 Dec 2005

Union Officials Face Federal Charges for Firing Local Workers Who Continued to Work During Strike

Posted in News Releases

Pottstown, PA (December 21, 2005) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, two local workers filed federal charges against their employer, the International Chemical Workers Union Council (ICWUC), and its Local 619 chapter, for having them fired in retaliation for returning to work during a union-ordered strike.

David Cameron and Walter Reigner, chemical workers at the Cabot Supermetals factory in Boyertown, were fired in November as part of a union-negotiated strike settlement between Cabot and ICWUC union officials. In the agreement, union officials explicitly demanded that Cameron and Reigner, in addition to two other similarly-situated employees, be discharged for exercising their legal right to resign their formal union memberships and continue working during the strike.

As a result of union officials’ retaliatory demands against the workers who resigned from the union and disagreed with union officials’ dictates, Cabot fired the four employees and handed their jobs over to less skilled and less senior workers. Cameron and Reigner’s Foundation-assisted charges against the ICWUC unions and Cabot Supermetals seek reinstatement and back pay.

“In a shameless unlawful act of retribution, four loyal employees are out on the street,” said Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “Union officials are attempting to drive four families into financial straits in order to send a message to all other employees that they had better toe the union line.”

Cameron, Reigner, and their two colleagues exercised their right under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Patternmakers v. NLRB to resign from formal union membership and return to work during a strike. The firings violated the National Labor Relations Act and the duty of fair representation which are supposed to protect employees who exercise their right to refrain from collective union activity without retaliation or coercion.

The National Labor Relations Board will now review the unfair labor practice charges brought against Cabot and the ICWUC union, an affiliate of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and decide whether to issue a formal complaint.

20 Dec 2005

NYC Union Officials’ Scofflaw Actions Could Cause the Firing of 30,000 Striking Transit Workers

Posted in News Releases

New York, N.Y. (December 20, 2005) – Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees suffering from compulsory unionism abuses, made the following statement in response to today’s illegal mass transit strike that shut down the New York City subway system:

“Transportation Workers Union (TWU) officials are not only holding New York City and its economy hostage to their self-serving demands, but they are potentially jeopardizing the jobs of New York City’s 30,000 mass transit workers.

“These union officials have a public-be-damned attitude and are holding a gun to the head of New York City’s business owners and workers. The costs of this illegal strike to New York’s working families will be enormous.

“Moreover, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) officials may ultimately have no choice but to fire the illegal strikers in order to uphold the rule of law and to preserve New York’s security and economic vitality. President Ronald Reagan took similar action to protect the travelling public when he ordered the firing in 1981 of illegally striking air traffic controllers who refused to return to their jobs.

“This illegal strike is a direct result of the coercive privileges union officials have gained under New York law that empowers them to force workers into union affiliation – like it or not. As long as union officials in New York enjoy compulsory unionism privileges, individual workers, the economy, and the public in general will continue to pay the price.”

To schedule an interview with a Right to Work spokesperson, contact Justin Hakes at 703-770-3317.

8 Dec 2005

Worker Rights Advocate: “International Human Rights Day” a Smokescreen for More Coercive Union Organizing

Posted in News Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 8, 2005)Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees suffering from compulsory unionism abuses, made the following statement in response to today’s so-called “International Human Rights Day” rally, organized by AFL-CIO officials:

“When union officials use code phrases like ‘make it easier for workers to organize unions,’ they are talking about their campaign to make it easier for organizers to force workers into union ranks regardless of their wishes.”

“Orchestrated to invoke the sympathy of the American people, this one-sided media-blitz ignores the widespread abuse of employees who choose to refrain from union affiliation. Big Labor is trying to build public support for the enactment of a new wave of coercive union ‘organizing’ privileges.

“Since employees are increasingly voting unions down, union officials want to change the law to clear the few remaining roadblocks in the way of their ‘card check’ organizing scheme. Union officials want to wipe out the secret ballot election process, get gag orders to prevent employers from telling employees about possible downsides of unionization, and require employers to hand over workers’ home addresses and phone numbers without the employee’s knowledge or consent. Employees often receive menacing home visits from union operatives.

“Responding to a wave of employee backlash, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has brought numerous legal cases to the attention of the federal labor board documenting illegal activities by union organizers under these so-called ‘card check’ organizing drives – including threats, bribes, and stalking rank-and-file workers. Other workers have repeatedly reported being lied to about the purpose of the ‘authorization’ cards, with some being told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, requests for an election, or even tax forms.

“Workers across the country facing such abuses are standing up to what Big Labor considers to be the only ‘choice’ that workers ought to have when it comes to union membership: Either pay dues to a union – or forfeit their jobs.”

7 Dec 2005

Federal Government to Prosecute Teamsters Union Affiliate for Illegally Threatening to Have Amerigas Employees Fired

Posted in News Releases

St. Louis, Missouri (December 7, 2005) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to prosecute the Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers, Health Care & Public Employees Union Local 610 for illegally threatening the jobs of two Amerigas Eagle Propane (Amerigas) employees at the company’s Hazelwood facility. Local 610 union officials unlawfully threatened to have the two workers fired after failing to inform them of their rights and demanding that they pay full union dues.

The complaint stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Vernon Mathis and Dewitt Mitchell at the NLRB with help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in June. In those charges, Mathis and Mitchell asserted that union officials failed to inform Amerigas employees of their right to refrain from formal union membership and not to be forced to pay dues beyond the union’s proven collective bargaining costs.

Furthermore, union officials threatened to have the workers fired if they did not pay full union dues, including dues for their first month of employment by Amerigas. However, Mathis and Dewitt had not formally joined the union and could not be legally compelled to pay any union dues until after their initial month of employment. In addition, union officials threatened that once the workers were fired, they would not be eligible for re-hiring even if they later paid all dues that were demanded of them.

“Union officials have tried to make an example of these two workers so that all employees will think twice before defying union edicts,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the Foundation. “These illegal threats against employees are typical where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”

Because Missouri does not have a Right to Work law, union officials can order the firing of workers who refuse to pay certain union dues.

However, under the Foundation-won Supreme Court decision in Communications Workers v. Beck and subsequent NLRB rulings, union officials cannot require formal union membership or the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining as a condition of employment. Employees are also entitled to notice of their right to refrain from union membership, an independent audit of union expenditures and notice of their right to object to paying for non-bargaining activities, such as union political activities.

The NLRB has scheduled a January 17, 2006 hearing at which the Local 610 union will be prosecuted for violating Mathis’ and Mitchell’s rights.

6 Dec 2005

Monroe County Probation Officers Hit Unions with Federal Suit for Violating their Constitutional Rights

Posted in News Releases

Rochester, NY (December 6, 2005) – Five Monroe County probation officers filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court today with help from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys against two government unions for violating their First Amendment rights.

The probation officers accuse officials of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) union and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union of deliberately violating their First Amendment and due process rights by seizing forced union dues from their paychecks while refusing them a legally mandated audit of union expenditures.

The five officers, led by David Scheffer, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York seeking an injunction preventing the further collection of forced union dues, as well as full refunds and punitive damages. The officers’ suit seeks similar relief for all nonmember public employees represented by CSEA union affiliates throughout the state of New York, a number believed to be in the thousands.

Additionally, the officers charge the unions with spending their forced dues on union organizing drives, despite their objections.

“Employees should not have to go to federal court to stop use of their forced union dues for non-bargaining activities,” stated Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “However, as long as public employees in New York labor under forced unionism, these abuses by union officials will inevitably continue.”

Since at least November 2002, CSEA and AFSCME union officials have illegally seized forced dues from nonmember public employees without providing a legally mandated independent audit of how the fee is calculated. Foundation attorneys point out that union officials are spending a significant portion of the forced dues seized from nonmember employees on expenses not related to collective bargaining.

The actions of CSEA and AFSCME union officials violate the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, which requires union officials to provide public employees that refrain from formal union membership with an audit of union expenditures. Such audits are intended to prevent the use of public employees’ forced union dues for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as politics and union organizing.