American Federation of Musicians (AFM) union bosses have a troubled history of intimidating nonmember musicians. Now the Foundation is suing several local affiliates in California to prevent future instances of union discrimination. Here’s an excerpt from our latest press release:

Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) Locals 7, 47, and 581 unions on behalf of seven nonmember musicians whose careers were seriously damaged by union militants.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit alleges that union officials conspired to blacklist musicians in retaliation for resigning from formal union membership. Union officials are accused of violating their “duty of fair representation” by refusing nonmember musicians access to a rehearsal hall, hindering their efforts to find employment, and enshrining certain discriminatory policies in contracts with several local symphonies.

Read the whole thing here. You can also check out the Foundation’s video on union intimidation and the entertainment industry here.

Los Angeles, California (October 27, 2008) – Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) Locals 7, 47, and 581 unions on behalf of seven nonmember musicians whose careers were seriously damaged by union militants.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit alleges that union officials conspired to blacklist musicians in retaliation for resigning from formal union membership. Union officials are accused of violating their “duty of fair representation” by refusing nonmember musicians access to a rehearsal hall, hindering their efforts to find employment, and enshrining certain discriminatory policies in contracts with several local symphonies.

Under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck, workers have the right to resign from formal, full dues-paying union membership. Because California has no Right to Work law making dues payment strictly voluntary, employees in a union-controlled bargaining unit can still be obligated to pay certain dues for union activities related to collective bargaining. However, employees who exercise their right to resign from formal union membership cannot be discriminated against by union officials or employers. Every Foundation plaintiff has met its forced-dues obligation to the union’s local affiliates.

Nevertheless, AFM union operatives attempted to blacklist dissenters who resigned their union membership by informing prospective employers that they were “not in good standing” and therefore ineligible for work. As a result, several orchestras and producers declined to hire nonunion musicians.

Furthermore, union officials included a discriminatory clause in contracts with local orchestras explicitly forbidding the employment of nonunion workers. Union officials from one local also prevented nonunion employees from accessing a rehearsal hall used by several employers. Foundation attorneys are seeking financial restitution for the plaintiffs as well as a court injunction preventing future discriminatory practices.

“Ugly union discrimination and intimidation of this nature is a widespread practice in the entertainment industry,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We expect the union will face a substantial and embarrassing defeat as a result of this lawsuit.”

Washington, DC (October 23, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

The union and its officers appear to be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets. On June 3, delegates to the SEIU convention approved Constitutional Amendment #317 in time to take effect for this year’s federal elections.

The policy imposes on each SEIU local an “annual SEIU COPE fundraising obligation.” SEIU COPE is the SEIU’s federal PAC. If a local fails to meet this requirement, the SEIU imposes heavy fines. However, federal election law forbids unions from “utilizing money…secured by…financial reprisals… or the threat of … financial reprisal” to fund a PAC.

Union officials have injected enormous sums of money this election season into electing favored candidates. The FEC lists SEIU COPE as the top labor union PAC with over $23 million in receipts for 2005-2006, and SEIU union bosses expect the new requirement to funnel at least $9 million into SEIU COPE.

Because the SEIU’s political contributions are so significant, Foundation attorneys believe that this amendment has the potential to irreparably compromise the integrity of the electoral process. By coercing local affiliates and nonmember employees into contributing to the SEIU’s massive general election fund, union officials threaten to disenfranchise voters with a firestorm of illegally funded political activism.

Last year, the FEC levied record fines – though still quite minimal compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars at issue in the case – against Americans Coming Together, an SEIU-backed “527” group following a complaint filed by the National Right to Work Foundation.

“The SEIU cannot be trusted with its government-backed forced-dues privilege, and its scheme will corrupt the election process,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason. “The FEC must act quickly.”

The Foundation joined with Karen Glass, a school district employee in Wisconsin who is forced to pay dues to SEIU Local 150 and its national affiliate, and Regent University School of Law student Michael Casaretto, who has extensively researched the SEIU scheme.

Salisbury, Maryland (October 16, 2008) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters/Graphic Communications Conference District Council 9 union for compelling nonmember employees to annually object to the payment of union dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Four days after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the union agreed to a settlement that eliminated the Teamsters’ annual objector policy, Teamsters officials issued a letter to nonunion Standard Register employees in Salisbury, Maryland indicating they would still have to annually opt-out of and object to paying certain union fees each year.

District Council 9/Graphic Communications Conference union officials are the monopoly bargaining agents for companies across the Mid-Atlantic region. The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charges were filed on behalf of ten workers in Maryland and seven in Pennsylvania, many of whom fear that the union will reverse or ignore its earlier promise to end the annual objection policy.

Nonunion employees can be forced to pay union dues for workplace representation as a condition of employment, but under the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck they cannot be legally required to pay for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. As a result of previous Foundation unfair labor practice charges, the NLRB’s settlement eliminated a requirement forcing nonmember employees to annually renew their objections to excessive union dues. Despite this settlement agreement, Salisbury-area union officials maintained an annual objection policy designed to make it difficult for employees to exercise their Beck rights.

Although the NLRB issued its decision as a result of an unfair labor practice charge in Philadelphia, the settlement applied to the entire local. In that settlement, union officials agreed to remove their annual objector policy, as well as refund several nonmember employees for payments unrelated to collective bargaining.

“This is a scoff law union that has developed a disturbing reputation for pushing nonunion workers around,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The incident demonstrates the fundamental injustice of forced unionism. If union bosses were stripped of their special powers to force employees into unions and their forced dues ranks, this type of abuse couldn’t happen.”

Honolulu, Hawaii (October 6, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to prosecute the UNITE HERE! Local 5 union in response to charges filed by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for two hotel industry workers.

Brenda Lee Orr, a nonunion employee of Turtle Bay Resort, alleges that union officials compelled her to pay dues for national organizing activities and a strike expense fund as a condition of employment. Grant Suzuki, a nonunion employee of Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort and Spa, also alleges that UNITE HERE! Local 5 forced him to pay dues for national organizing and that union officials refused to provide him with a financial breakdown of union expenditures mandated by federal law. Government prosecutors determined that the union’s conduct violated employees’ rights, and will try the case before an administrative law judge.

Union officials can force nonmember employees to fund certain activities, but the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Communication Workers v. Beck holds that union officials may not charge nonunion workers for activities unrelated to collective bargaining. The Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson also requires union officials to provide nonmember employees with an audited financial breakdown of union expenditures.

Although both employees refused formal union membership, UNITE HERE! bosses compelled Orr and Suzuki to fund organizing activities far removed from their places of employment. Union officials also forced Orr to pay into a general strike fund intended to support strikes across the country.

When Suzuki requested a financial breakdown of union expenditures to determine what mandatory fees he owed, union officials violated federal labor law by refusing to comply.

“Workers shouldn’t have to navigate a complex web of union rules and federal regulations to opt out of funding union activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The ultimate solution is for Hawaii to adopt a Right to Work law ensuring union membership and dues payment are completely voluntary.”

Washington, DC (October 3, 2008) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court case Locke v. Karass scheduled for argument on Monday, October 6.

“In previous cases argued by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the Supreme Court has thus far ruled that union officials may force employees to pay union dues or be fired from their jobs. But they may not legally charge nonmembers for any activities beyond what union bosses can prove is spent on collective bargaining and contract administration.

“In their unquenchable thirst for more forced union dues, union bosses have developed a number of creative ways to stick nonmembers with the bill for union activism.

“The Supreme Court in Locke will directly address the question of whether non-union employees can be forced to pay for costly union lawsuits that do not concern their own place of employment. The answer should be ‘no’ based on existing Supreme Court precedent. Litigation is expressive activity, and forcing unwilling individuals to fund it violates their First Amendment rights. And lawsuits are often used to grease the rails for union organizing and ultimately more forced dues.

“Millions of workers laboring under forced unionism in America may be affected by the Court’s decision. While we are optimistic the Court will rule in our favor, the real remedy for the misuse of compulsory union dues is the elimination of Big Labor’s government-enabled special privileges that cause the problem in the first place. No worker should be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union.”

Foundation attorneys filed the Locke case for Daniel Locke and 19 other Maine State employees in 2005 after the state legislature and governor repaid campaign debts by imposing a forced union dues requirement on the state government workforce. The employees’ lawsuit successfully forced Maine State Employee Association union officials to abandon their efforts to force nonmembers to subsidize their nationwide organizing efforts and reduce their forced dues demands of nonmembers, but the employees lost on the litigation funding question at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Pittsburgh, PA (September 26, 2008) – The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of seven Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) employees against the Teamsters union and PTC for seizing forced union dues in violation of the employees’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

With free legal aid from staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation, the seven Turnpike workers filed a federal lawsuit last year against Teamsters Local 250, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the PTC. Local 250 is the certified monopoly bargaining agent of Turnpike employees – every employee, like it or not, is forced to accept union representation and is required to pay dues or fees to the union to keep his or her job.

In the Foundation-won Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously established due process safeguards to ensure that employees are not compelled to subsidize union activities beyond what union officials can prove is spent on collective bargaining. Union expenditures such as organizing and political activism cannot be legally charged to workers who exercise their right to refrain from union membership. Before collecting an “agency fee” from a nonmember employee, a union must provide an adequate explanation for the basis of the fee, verified by an independent auditor, and an opportunity for the worker to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial third party.

In its decision released on Thursday, the District Court found that Local 250 failed to provide an adequate basis for the forced union fee seized from the seven workers, from whom the PTC seized more than 92 percent of the dues formal union members paid. The court found that the local’s “procedures for chargeability audits are faulty and incomplete.” Specifically, Local 250 failed to break down the portion of the fees which went to the local’s national affiliates.

Particularly troubling are the court’s findings that the “independent auditor” relied solely on a personal conversation with a Local 250 union boss, “word of mouth” from IBT chiefs, and a quick look at the local’s year end balance sheets to verify the chargeability of the union’s expenses. Local union officials also failed to even obtain an audit of its expenses one year.

The court awarded nominal damages, restitution of the nonchargeable portions of the agency fees seized after the employees resigned in writing (plus interest), and attorneys’ fees. It will hold an evidentiary to determine the amount of the restitution. At the hearing, the court will also consider whether six of the employees may be entitled to restitution for an earlier period because union bosses failed to provide them adequate Hudson notices after they orally expressed their desire to resign from the union.

“Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not have a Right to Work law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “In the absence of such a protection, union bosses will continue to try to extract as much dues money as possible from dissenting workers.”

Here’s our latest press release on the Foundation’s efforts to defend the rights of religious objectors to refrain from supporting union activities that offend their deeply-held beliefs:

Cincinnati, Ohio (September 24, 2008) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys recently obtained settlements with the National Education Association (NEA) union for two teachers whose consciences would not allow them to pay mandatory dues to support a union involved in activities they consider immoral. Geralyn Buening and Tessy Huwer, both practicing Catholics, objected to the NEA’s positions on abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination against religious employees and requires companies and unions to attempt to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely-held religious beliefs. The obligation to accommodate includes the payment of compulsory union fees, as no employee should be forced to fund a union that engages in activities that offend their religious convictions.

The Ohio teachers originally filed charges against the NEA teacher union with the Ohio Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the union was in violation of their rights as religious objectors. In return for withdrawing the charges, the settlement allows the teachers to redirect their mandatory agency fees to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, rather than pay any funds whatsoever to a union hierarchy steeped in objectionable social activism.

Read the rest of the press release here. For more on the Foundation’s efforts to ensure unwilling Ohio teachers aren’t forced to fund morally objectionable causes, check out here and here.

Cincinnati, Ohio (September 24, 2008) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys recently obtained settlements with the National Education Association (NEA) union for two teachers whose consciences would not allow them to pay mandatory dues to support a union involved in activities they consider immoral. Geralyn Buening and Tessy Huwer, both practicing Catholics, objected to the NEA’s positions on abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination against religious employees and requires companies and unions to attempt to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely-held religious beliefs. The obligation to accommodate includes the payment of compulsory union fees, as no employee should be forced to fund a union that engages in activities that offend their religious convictions.

The Ohio teachers originally filed charges against the NEA teacher union with the Ohio Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the union was in violation of their rights as religious objectors. In return for withdrawing the charges, the settlement allows the teachers to redirect their mandatory agency fees to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, rather than pay any funds whatsoever to a union hierarchy steeped in objectionable social activism.

The Ohio Education Association (OEA) has a long and abusive record of refusing to accommodate religious objectors in the workplace. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have helped Ohio teachers in dozens of cases over the last decade involving the OEA and its affiliates. The EEOC has filed suit against OEA affiliates and released findings that OEA affiliates violated the rights of religious objectors. Congress has also investigated the problem of the OEA and its treatment of employees of faith. In fact, one OEA attorney went so far as to tell Carol Katter, a life-long Catholic, that she should “change religions” when she requested a religious accommodation to redirect her union fees to a charitable organization.

“While we applaud the EEOC for working with our legal aid team to reach an equitable settlement, abuses of this nature will continue as long as Ohio lacks a Right to Work law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Making union affiliation completely voluntary is the most effective way to free employees from the abuses of forced unionism.”