Source: https://nrtw.org/category/newsletter-articles/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:08:10+00:00

Document:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – By this time next year every government worker in America could be free from forced union dues if a National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation lawsuit for an Illinois state employee is successful.
Mark Janus, a state-employed child support specialist, seeks a ruling that forcing government employees to pay money to union officials to keep their jobs violates the First Amendment.
In June, staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and Liberty Justice Center filed a writ of certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME. If the Court agrees in September to take the case, a ruling would be likely by June 2018.
“Requiring public servants to subsidize union officials’ speech is incompatible with the First Amendment. This petition asks the Supreme Court to take up this case and revisit a nearly half-century-old mistake that led to an anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented.
The Janus v. AFSCME case stems from Obama Labor Board Majority an executive order issued by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner on February 9, 2015. It prohibited state agencies from requiring nonmember state employees to pay union fees, and directed that such the resolution of litigation. On the same day, Rauner filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asking for a declaratory judgment that the forced fee provisions violate the First Amendment and that his executive order was valid.
In March 2015, staff attorneys from the Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center moved for Mark Janus to intervene in the case. Janus’ complaint requested not only a declaratory judgment but also an injunction and damages from the unions for the compelled fees. The court granted Janus’ motion to intervene which allowed the suit to continue to move forward even after the court ruled that Governor Rauner lacked the standing to pursue the lawsuit.
On July 2, 2015, the Illinois Attorney General asked the district court to stay the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in a case with similar constitutional issues at stake, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.
The Supreme Court ultimately deadlocked 4-4 on Friedrichs, following Justice Scalia’s death, allowing the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education precedent to stand for the time being. In Abood, the Court held that, although union officials could not constitutionally spend objectors’ funds for some political and ideological activities, unions could require fees to subsidize collective bargaining and contract administration with government employers.
Soon after the deadlock in Friedrichs, a district court judge dismissed Janus, allowing the case to be appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, citing Abood, thus allowing Janus to be petitioned to the Supreme Court.
Janus follows a series of Foundation-won Supreme Court decisions that demonstrate a willingness by the Supreme Court to reconsider Abood and apply strict scrutiny to the constitutionality of forced union fees.
In Knox v. SEIU, brought by Foundation staff attorneys for California employees, the Supreme Court began to question Abood’s underpinnings. The Court in 2012 held in Knox that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for special assessments or dues increases that include union politicking.
The Foundation also assisted a group of Illinois home care providers in challenging a state scheme authorizing Service Employees International Union officials to require the providers to pay union dues or fees. Foundation attorneys took the case, Harris v. Quinn, to the Supreme Court, which held in 2014 that the forced-dues requirement violated the First Amendment.
Janus v. AFSCME is on track for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear it at its conference before the next term begins in the fall. If four justices agree, the Court could announce soon after its September 25 conference whether it will hear the case.
Foundation staff attorneys also filed another federal lawsuit seeking to end union bosses’ forced-dues powers to demand union fees as a condition of employment. The case, Keller v. Shorba, was filed for two Minnesota state employees. These employees, Carrie Keller and Elizabeth Zeien, are employed by the State of Minnesota Court System. When they started working for the State, neither was a union member, and they both negotiated their own terms and conditions of employment and salaries, free from union interference.
In 2015, union officials started proceedings to force state employees who were not in monopoly bargaining units into union ranks, where they could be required to pay union dues and fees. In March 2017, Minnesota state officials bowed to the Teamsters’ demands and added a number of employees, including Keller and Zeien, to a Teamsters-controlled bargaining unit without the employees’ permission or desire. Keller, Zeien, and the other employees were never given a vote on whether they should be part of the union bargaining unit, and they objected to the new scheme.
contract. The lower compensation under the union contract and the imposition of mandatory union fees led Keller and Zeien to approach the Foundation for assistance in challenging the forced unionization scheme.
Keller and Zeien’s case is one of six ongoing challenges, in addition to Janus, brought by Foundation staff attorneys across the country challenging the constitutionality of forced union fees.
In the petition to the Court for six Illinois personal-care and childcare providers, Foundation staff attorneys contend that the state law infringes on the providers’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to associate with a union they do not wish to join or support. Granting the union exclusive power to deal with the State of Illinois over caregiving practices violates the caregivers’ right to choose with whom they associate to petition their own government.
The caregivers’ petition to the Supreme Court in Hill follows the National Right to Work Foundation’s landmark 2014 Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn, which was also filed for several homebased Illinois care providers. That decision prohibited union officials from collecting mandatory dues or fees from home-based caregivers.
The Hill petition argues that, although the Harris case dealt with compelled fees, because the Court ruled that the state’s justification for mandatory fees was insufficient under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court should strike down the compelled association on the same grounds.
The petition asks the Court to take the case so that it can apply the same standard to the First Amendment infringements created when state law forces home care providers to accept a government- appointed monopoly union agent against their will. Foundation staff attorneys have brought similar challenges on behalf of home and childcare providers in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.
Like the other Foundation case petitioned to the Court on the same day, Janus v. AFSCME, Hill v. SEIU is on track for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear it at its conference before the next term begins in the fall.
If four justices agree, the Supreme Court could announce soon after its September 25 conference that it will hear the case. The petition also argues that if the Court doesn’t take the Hill case right away, it should at least hold it pending a decision in the Janus case.
Springfield, VA –The National Right to Work Foundation announced the creation of a special task force designed to defend and enforce Kentucky’s newly-enacted Right to Work law immediately after Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed the bill into law on January 7 to make Kentucky the 27th Right to Work state.
The Foundation is offering free legal aid to Bluegrass State workers seeking to exercise their new rights to refrain from union membership and union dues payments. Foundation staff attorneys are also preparing for lawsuits filed by union officials seeking to overturn or delay the new Right to Work protections for employees.
The law took effect immediately and applies to collective bargaining contracts entered into, extended, or renewed on or after January 7, 2017. Any worker in a contract in effect before January 7, 2017, may still compelled to either pay union dues or fees but employees seeking to exercise their rights should contact the Foundation to explore their legal options.
Unfortunately, union officials often try to stymie independent-minded workers seeking to exercise their rights under Right to Work laws.
“As we’ve seen in recent new Right to Work, union bosses try to make it as hard as possible for workers to exercise their right to refrain from paying any union dues or fees, or resign union membership. Right to Work laws are only words on paper unless they are vigorously enforced, which is why the Foundation has launched this special task force,” said Patrick Semmens, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.
The Foundation has a long history of assisting employees seeking to exercise their Right to Work protections. Defending and enforcing Right to Work protections has long been one of the most critical tasks undertaken by Foundation staff attorneys.
After the passage of a Right to Work law in Indiana in 2012, union bosses sought to wipe out the law with 2 lawsuits in State Court and one in Federal Court. Foundation staff attorneys submitted amicus curiae briefs in both State Court cases and conferred with lawyers about with legal arguments to make for the state of Indiana for the Federal challenge to Right to Work. All three lawsuits were dismissed and Right to Work was upheld.
In Michigan, which passed a state Right to Work law in 2013, foundation attorneys filed amicus curiae briefs in both a Federal lawsuit and a State lawsuit challenging the public sector portion of the Right to Work law. Both lawsuits were eventually dismissed. Additionally, foundation attorneys have filed over 88 actions for Michigan citizens seeking relating to workers seeking to exercise their Right to Work.
The Foundation also has a legal task force in West Virginia helping to assist in defending the Mountain State’s Right to Work law which went into effect last summer and is subject to a dubious union lawsuit at present.
“Big Labor union bosses are never willing to give up their forced-dues powers without a fight. We expect union bosses to try to tie up the law in the courts, but luckily our staff attorneys have a lot of experience defending Right to Work laws, which have always been upheld,” added Semmens.
Any Kentucky worker who has questions about his or her rights, or encounters any resistance or abuse while trying to exercise his or her workplace rights, is encouraged to contact Foundation staff attorneys for free legal aid.
Washington, DC – West Virginia worker Jeffrey Richmond finally has closure on a four-year legal battle in West Virginia that began with being forced to contribute to a union boss Political Action Committee and ended with being fired as retaliation. This past fall, in response to charges filed by Foundation staff attorneys against the company and the associated union, the Federal Election Commission assessed Penn Line Services, Inc. of West Virginia a fine as a civil penalty. The company was found guilty of illegally deducting union dues and PAC contributions from Richmond’s paycheck to send to LIUNA union officials and then retaliated against Richmond for objecting to the scheme.
In July 2012, nearly four years before West Virginia passed a Right to Work law, Penn Line hired Jeffrey Richmond as a driver/laborer. At the time, the company had a monopoly bargaining agreement in force with the Laborers International Union (LIUNA), Local 453. Richmond was not a member of LIUNA and did not authorize any form of payroll deduction.
Several months later, Penn Line presented Richmond with a union membership form. On the provided mandatory union membership form was a section for payroll contributions to the LIUNA Political Action Committee. Under federal law, contributions to political action committees or political funds are completely voluntary and workers may refuse to contribute without fear of reprisal. Richmond agreed to join the union, signing the membership portion of the form, but chose not to authorize payroll deductions to the PAC.
However, Penn Line representatives, without authorization, deducted money from Richmond’s paycheck dating back to the date of his hiring so the money could go to the union PAC fund. Shortly after Richmond signed the membership form without the payroll deduction section, a Penn Line official informed him that the form was being returned to him for his authorization of the union PAC deductions. When Richmond refused, Penn Line immediately fired him, even though federal law clearly states that all PAC contributions must be completely voluntary.
Richmond reached out to the Foundation, and with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The charges were investigated, and in 2013 Penn Line Service, Inc. was forced to settle. Under the terms of that settlement, Richmond was awarded back pay as damages, as well as reimbursements for items like uniforms.
Foundation staff attorneys also assisted in filing charges with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The charges list the four counts where Penn Line and LIUNA brass violated Richmond’s rights. These counts include the numerous times where Penn Line officials refused to inform Richmond of his right to refuse to contribute to a PAC without reprisal, the failure to notify Richmond of the political purposes and nature of the deductions from his paycheck, and the illegal termination of his position despite his religious objection status.
The FEC investigated the charges against Penn Line, Laborers International Union, and LIUNA Local 453, determining that Penn Line had illegally deducted union dues from workers for political purposes without giving the workers an opportunity to object, violating the workers’ rights. The FEC issued a conciliation agreement in October of last year that fined Penn Line the sum of $5,500. Despite the Foundation’s FEC charges specifically denoting the involvement of LIUNA officials, the charges laid against LIUNA International and the LIUNA Local 453 union officials were dropped.
This is not the first time that FEC charges have been filed against a union for funding political action through illegal dues deductions or mishandling of funds. Following a complaint filed by Foundation staff attorneys in 2007 against Americans Coming together, an SEIU “527” group, the FEC levied record fines albeit not large compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in the case.
The Foundation created a special task force last year to defend and enforce West Virginia’s newly-passed Right to Work law. Foundation staff attorneys are offering free legal advice and aid to Mountain State workers seeking to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the Right to Work law to refrain from union membership and union dues payment. In addition, Foundation staff attorneys are currently defending the West Virginia Right to Work law in state court against a lawsuit by multiple union officials seeking to overturn the law ending Big Labor’s power to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees.
Jefferson City, MO– With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys three Missouri workers filed legal challenges against ten separate initiative-petitions that would wipe out Missouri’s recently passed Right to Work law and strip away the newly-won Right to Work protections for them and hundreds of thousands of other Missouri workers.
If approved and passed the ballot measures would prevent the Missouri General Assembly from prohibiting forced-unionism agreements, essentially rendering the Missouri Right to Work law null-and-void.
Two of the workers, Michael Briggs and Roger Stickler, are Kansas City police officers and are subject to a monopoly bargaining contract. Briggs and Stickler were nearly forced to pay fees to a union boss for the privilege of working even though they are not members of the union ‘representing’ them until they received free legal aid from the Foundation. The other plaintiff in the case Mary Hill is a nurse employed in the state.
All the plaintiffs would be directly affected by the passage of any of the union boss-backed ballot measures because they would lose their Right to Work without being compelled to subsidize a labor union.
Although required to draft summary statements to inform petition signers and voters of the effect of the proposed amendments, former Secretary of State Kander’ s midnight actions seem designed to hide from Missouri voters the ballot measures would put in Missouri’s constitution. None of the proposals even mention the Right to Work law that they are designed to nullify.
Secretary Kander approved all ten just hours before vacating his office. They would appear on the 2018 general election ballot if they obtain a sufficient number of voter’s signatures.
Mix added, “It is shameful that union bosses who claim to ‘represent’ workers are trying to kill a much needed and popular law before it is even passed by the legislature through a midnight political favor by a big labor-backed candidate.
Check out this article from the January/February 2017 newsletter. To read the full newsletter and to sign up for your free copy, please click here.
Since its establishment in 1968, one of the most critical missions of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has been defending state Right to Work laws from the never ending Big Labor legal attacks. Inevitably, soon after a new Right to Work law is passed union officials sue with the intent of overturning, or at least delaying the worker freedom protections offered by Right to Work.
West Virginia, which passed the nation’s 26th Right to Work law in early 2016, is no exception. Even before the law took full effect, union lawyers for the AFL-CIO and a coalition of other unions initiated a challenge to the law in state court.
In early December, Foundation staff attorneys moved to intervene in the case on behalf of Reginald Gibbs, asking the circuit court that Gibbs be made a party to the case so he can defend his rights under the Right to Work law. In his motion, Gibbs adopts the arguments made in two amicus briefs filed by the National Right to Work Foundation, arguing why the court should reject Big Labor’s attempt to overturn or delay the law.
Reginald Gibbs is a slot machine technician at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. As an employee of the Greenbrier, Gibbs is currently under a monopoly bargaining contract with a union forced dues clause, requiring him to pay dues or fees to the union or be fired.
The motion to intervene argues that if the law is overturned or blocked by a judicial order, Gibbs would continue to be forced to continue to pay dues and fees, despite his objections. Although the State of West Virginia is already defending the law in the case, the motion notes that Gibbs has special interests in defending his Right to Work as an employee affected by the law, which is distinct from the interests of the state whose duty is to defend the constitutionality of the law.
Gibbs further argues in his motion that as a worker currently employed under a compulsory unionism agreement, he will suffer direct harm if the law is overturned. The court will be considering the motion with the next hearing scheduled for early 2017.
West Virginia is not the only state where Foundation staff attorneys have responded to union boss legal attacks on Right to Work. Foundation staff attorneys have also filed briefs in similar cases in Federal Court in Idaho and Wisconsin, as well as in a Wisconsin State Court.
With the possibility of new Right to Work laws in Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire in 2017, the Foundation stands ready in 2017 to defend worker freedom in those states from the inevitable attacks by Big Labor operatives.
Springfield, VA– The National Right to Work Foundation is stepping up its efforts to inform charter school teachers and other employees of the legal rights they have to refrain from compulsory unionism. As part of the effort, Foundation staff attorneys attended charter school conferences in Ohio and Louisiana in December.
Sending Foundation attorneys to these charter school conferences is part of a growing initiative of the Foundation’s legal information program to ensure charter school employees are fully aware of their rights and are able to make an informed decision in regards to unionization. In 2016 Foundation staff attorneys attended half a dozen conferences across the country to promote the Foundation’s legal aid program for charter school employees.
Union bosses have historically been steadfastly opposed to the existence of charter schools because they see them as a threat to their monopoly over students and teachers. However, as charter schools continue to expand across the country and grow in popularity, teacher union organizers have been increasingly targeting charter school employees as new sources of forced dues to fill their depleting coffers.
Foundation staff attorneys recently assisted charter school employees in New York State in arranging a decertification election to decertify a union the employees did not want. Even after a majority voted to decertify the union, union bosses appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a desperate attempt to keep the employees in their forced dues grasp. Foundation staff attorneys stood by the employees every step of the way and successfully convinced the NLRB to deny the appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.