Source: http://righttowork.org/category/news/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:48:03+00:00

Document:
Portland, OR (March 8, 2019) – After worker Terry Denton sought free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to file unfair labor practice charges over forced union dues, Unite Here Local 8 union officials backed down from unlawfully billing nonmembers for union fees they did not owe. Moreover, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a complaint in a separate case brought by Denton and a coworker against Unite Here Local 8 challenging the union’s failure to disclose the amount of reduced compulsory nonmember fees.
The complaint comes after a new memo issued by NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, in which Robb says that union officials under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) should disclose the amount of nonmember fees to enable employees to make an informed choice between full membership dues and reduced compulsory fees.
Terry Denton works for Bon Appetit at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. She and her coworkers are under the monopoly bargaining representation of Unite Here Local 8 union officials, who unionized the workplace in May 2017 via a coercive “card check” campaign, an abuse-prone process that circumvents the protections employees have under an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election.
Denton and several of her colleagues are not union members. Because Oregon lacks a Right to Work law, nonmembers can be required to pay union officials in order to work. However, workers cannot be required to fund activities unrelated to union bargaining, such as political action, lobbying, or organizing.
Denton exercised her right to object to paying full union dues and funding union activities beyond what can be required. However, Unite Here Local 8 officials demanded that she and similarly situated employees pay more than the reduced compulsory fee required to keep their jobs. Union officials sent her and other nonmembers bills for union fees for months already paid, months not worked, and/or amounts more than or equal to full union membership dues. Union officials threatened the workers that if they did not pay the amount demanded they could be fired.
To protect her rights, Denton sought free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In the Foundation-won Beck decision, the United States Supreme Court provided some limited protection by holding that workers cannot be forced to pay union dues for certain union activity.
After Denton filed her charges with the NLRB in January 2019, Unite Here Local 8 backed down from their initial demands by waiving fee payments for all nonmembers until November 2018. Union officials then sent out new bills reflecting the new policy and crediting payments that Denton previously made.
Additional charges brought against Unite Here Local 8 are ongoing. In August 2018, Denton and another employee, Alejandro Martinez Cuevas, filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that Unite Here Local 8 violated their rights by failing to provide employees under their monopoly bargaining contract with sufficient information to allow the workers to make an informed decision about whether to object to paying full union dues. The notices provided to employees who had not yet objected failed to include the amount of the reduction in fees for employees who object to paying full union dues.
The NLRB Regional Director issued a complaint, consolidating Denton’s and Cuevas’ charges, in light of General Counsel Robb’s new memo. The memo urges the NLRB to overturn a ruling made by the Obama NLRB in 2014 that held unions do not have to inform a new employee of the specific amount of nonmember compulsory fees until the worker decides to object to union membership and full union dues.
“A clear ruling by the NLRB is needed to protect workers from Big Labor’s tactics, but ultimately Oregon needs to pass a Right to Work law making union affiliation and financial support completely voluntary,” added Mix.
Grand Rapids, MI (March 5, 2019) – Federal charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys for Karen Ellis against Teamsters Local 332 have forced union officials to settle. Ellis filed the charges against Local 332 after union officials ignored her union dues deduction authorization revocation and threatened to sue her to force her to pay union dues.
Ellis works at Vocational Independence Program, an adult education school, in Flint, Michigan. Teamsters Local 332’s monopoly bargaining contract over her and her coworkers expired December 31, 2016. In February 2017, during the contractual hiatus, Ellis hand-delivered a letter to Local 332 union officials notifying them that she resigned from union membership and revoked her authorization for union dues deductions from her paycheck. She sent another letter two days later to reiterate her dues deduction revocation, and additionally notified Local 332’s international affiliate of her revocation in a letter two weeks later.
Union officials waited nine months before notifying Ellis in November 2017 that they refused to honor her revocation of dues deduction authorization, claiming that she owed union dues of nearly $300 and threatening to sue her if she did not pay the dues they claimed she owed. Local 332 also filed a grievance against Vocational Independence Program for honoring her revocation and stopping the deduction of union dues from her paycheck.
Even after Ellis reiterated her revocation – in November 2017 and again in February 2018, during another contractual hiatus – union officials refused to honor her revocation and threatened to sue her if she did not give in to their demands and pay the union dues they claimed.
Ellis sought free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to challenge the union officials’ demands as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act by blocking her from exercising her right to refrain from union membership and paying union dues.
Rather than face Foundation attorneys in an NLRB hearing, Local 332 officials decided to settle. Under the settlement, they will honor Ellis’ original dues deduction revocation submitted after the monopoly bargaining contract expired in 2016. Additionally, union officials will post a notice informing the school’s employees of their right to choose whether or not to join and support a union.
Michigan’s popular Right to Work legislation was signed into state law in December 2012 and ended any requirement that workers must pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Since the legislation was passed, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated more than 100 cases in Michigan combating compulsory unionism.
Washington, DC (March 1, 2019) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a sweeping decision in a nine-year-old case brought by Rhode Island nurse Jeanette Geary, ruling that union officials unlawfully spent Geary’s forced union fees and failed to meet a financial disclosure requirement on the amount of compulsory fees required as a condition of employment.
Geary, then a nurse at Kent Hospital in Warwick, Rhode Island, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) union in 2009 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
She filed the charges after UNAP officials failed to provide evidence of a legally required independent audit of its breakdown of expenditures. She also challenged the union’s forcing of her and other employees to pay for union lobbying activities in violation of the National Right to Work Foundation-won 1988 U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision.
The NLRB had issued a decision in 2012, but that decision was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s holding in NLRB v. Noel Canning that the Board lacked a valid quorum because of three unconstitutional “recess appointments” then President Obama made. Seven years later, Geary’s case was the only remaining case invalidated by Noel Canning that was still pending without a decision by the NLRB.
In January 2019 Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking a court order that the NLRB promptly decide Geary’s case. The Appeals Court then ordered the NLRB to respond to the mandamus petition by March 4, which ultimately caused the NLRB to issue its decision on March 1, just ahead of the deadline.
The NLRB’s 3-1 decision held that union officials violate workers’ rights by forcing nonmembers to fund union lobbying activities. It also ruled that union officials must provide independent verification that the union expenses they charge to nonmembers have been audited.
Washington, DC (March 1, 2019) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a decision overturning a Regional Director’s decision forcing employees at Lehigh Valley Hospital-Schuylkill East in Pennsylvania under the so-called “representation” of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses even though the workers opposed the union and rejected an SEIU organizing drive targeting them.
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys represented a group of employees in the case, providing free legal assistance to hospital employees challenging the Regional Director’s ruling.
Lansing, MI (February 28, 2019) – Unfair labor practice charges brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys for several Michigan public school employees against the Michigan Education Association (MEA) have forced union officials to settle. The charges were originally filed between October 2013 and November 2014 with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC).
The settlements free the workers from union officials’ “window period” policy, under which union officials claimed they owed union dues despite the facts that each worker had resigned his or her membership and that Michigan’s popular Right to Work Law ended any requirement that workers must pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
After Michigan’s Right to Work Law went into effect in 2013, public school employees Lindsey Bentley, Mary Derks, Sarah Evon, Jeffery Hauswirth, Becky Lapham, Shannon Rochon, and Michael Rochon each resigned their membership in the MEA and its local affiliates.
However, union officials refused to acknowledge the resignations, citing a “window period” policy that limited members to exercising their right to resign union membership during the month of August. Union officials claimed that the workers owed membership dues until the next “window period” to resign came around in August 2014, which was for many of the workers nearly a full year after their resignation. MEA officials also threatened to use collection agencies to collect dues the union claimed to be owed.
The workers all sought free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, who assisted them in filing unfair labor practice charges at the Michigan Employment Relations Commission against MEA and its local affiliates. Their charges were held in abeyance pending the result of another case, Saginaw, in which National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys provided legal aid to public school employees challenging the MEA’s “window period” policy.
The MERC ruled in Saginaw that the MEA and its affiliates violated the state’s Right to Work protections for public employees by illegally restricting employees’ right to resign union membership and by attempting to collect dues under the unlawful policy. Union lawyers appealed MERC’s rulings, but the Court of Appeals affirmed that the “window period” policy and the demands for forced dues were illegal. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the union lawyers’ request for review of the rulings, leaving the Foundation-won victory for employees in place.
After losing to Foundation staff attorneys in court in Saginaw, MEA officials decided to settle these cases. The MEA officials have acknowledged each employee’s union membership resignation, stopped demanding union dues, and will refund with interest the union dues that two of the employees paid after his or her resignation. One employee will receive a refund of more than $250 while the other will receive nearly $500 in back dues and interest.
Since Right to Work legislation was signed into state law in December 2012, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated more than 100 cases in Michigan combating compulsory unionism.
Washington, D.C. (February 26, 2019) – Ford Motor Company employee Lloyd Stoner won a ruling against the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local 600 in Dearborn, Michigan, in his federal labor case with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas ruled that UAW Local 600 engaged in unfair labor practices, prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, by accepting union dues deducted from Stoner’s wages for two-and-a-half months after he resigned union membership and revoked his authorization to deduct dues. The union also failed to refund any of the dues taken without Stoner’s consent for nearly five months after his revocation and then belatedly failed to refund the entire amount owed him.
Stoner had already won a favorable settlement last month from Ford, which was charged in a separate complaint for deducting the unauthorized dues from his paycheck.
ALJ Rosas found that union officials restrained Stoner from exercising his legal rights. Workers are entitled to resign union membership at any time under federal law. Furthermore, Michigan’s Right to Work Law passed in 2012 states that nonmembers cannot be required to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of their employment. So, failing to promptly allow Stoner to resign his union membership and stop paying union dues constituted an unfair labor practice.
Moreover, ALJ Rosas found that upon receiving Stoner’s resignation and dues deduction authorization revocation, UAW Local 600 Financial Secretary Mark DePaoli “decided to sit on it for a while” instead of providing a timely notice to Ford about Stoner’s resignation and dues deduction authorization revocation. This resulted in Ford deducting dues from Stoner’s paycheck without authorization for an additional 10 weeks, which constituted an additional unfair labor practice under federal labor law.
ALJ Rosas ruled that the dues deduction card that Stoner signed did not require workers to pay any dues or fees after resigning membership in the union. Union officials therefore had no legal authorization to accept any further dues deducted from Stoner’s wages after his resignation.
Under the ruling, UAW Local 600 must refund all dues taken from Stoner after his resignation, with interest. In addition, union officials must post notices at Ford’s Dearborn factory acknowledging that the union violated federal labor law and will honor all requests to resign union membership and cut off dues deductions.
Washington, D.C. (February 25, 2019) – Today, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, a group of Illinois homecare providers filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case in which providers seek the return of more than $32 million in union fees seized by SEIU officials in a scheme the High Court already declared unconstitutional.
The case, Riffey v. Pritzker, is a continuation of the 2014 Foundation-won Supreme Court Harris v. Quinn case. In Harris, the Court ruled that a scheme imposed by the State of Illinois, in which more than 80,000 individual homecare providers were forced to pay union fees out of the state funding they receive, violated the providers’ First Amendment rights.
In 2014, the case was re-designated Riffey v. Rauner (now Riffey v. Pritzker) and remanded to the District Court to settle remaining issues, including whether or not tens of thousands of providers who had not joined the union would receive refunds of the money taken from them unlawfully by the SEIU.
In June 2016, the District Court denied a motion for class certification. The ruling allowed the SEIU to keep more than $32 million in unconstitutional fees confiscated from union nonmembers who had not consented to their money being taken for union fees. Foundation staff attorneys appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which also denied class certification.
In 2018, Foundation staff attorneys successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Appeals Court’s ruling. The High Court did so the day after it issued the landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision, ordering the Appeals Court to reconsider the case in light of the Janus ruling, which struck down public sector forced union fees as violating the First Amendment.
In Janus, which was argued by the same National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney who is lead counsel in Riffey, the Supreme Court clarified that any union fees taken without an individual’s prior informed consent violate the First Amendment. That standard supports the Riffey plaintiffs’ claim that all providers who had money seized without their consent are entitled to refunds.
However, on December 6 a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court affirmed its previous ruling that no class can be certified for the more than 80,000 providers whose money was seized in violation of their First Amendment rights. The majority opinion, signed by two of the judges, denied class on the grounds that each individual homecare provider would have to prove that he or she objected to the taking of the fees when the seizures occurred.
In their petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear their case, the providers argue that Janus requires that the lower court’s class certification order be reversed. Foundation staff attorneys point out that the Janus precedent does not require a worker to prove his or her subjective opposition to forced union fees but held that the First Amendment is violated anytime union dues or fees are seized without clear affirmative consent.
Foundation attorneys argue that the case is of exceptional importance not only because it concerns the return of more than $32 million seized from some 80,000 homecare providers in violation of their First Amendment rights, but also because the lower courts’ ruling sets a precedent that could result in the denial of relief for millions of public employee victims of forced unionism.
“Already the US Supreme Court has ruled for these providers twice in this case, now one more trip is necessary for the victims of this illegal union scheme to finally have their rights vindicated,” added Mix.
Los Angeles, CA (February 15, 2019) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Director in Los Angeles has rejected union officials’ objections to USC Verdugo Hills Hospital employees’ election to remove the union as their monopoly bargaining representatives. The NLRB Regional Director ordered that the result of the election, in which a majority of the workers voted to oust the union, be certified.
After Andrew Brown, a surgical buyer, and his coworkers at USC Verdugo Hills in Glendale, California, successfully held a decertification election to remove the unwanted Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU), union officials tried to challenge the employees’ 118-107 victory. However, the NLRB Regional Director ruled that SEIU officials failed to follow the proper procedures by not serving their objections on all parties, as required by NLRB rules.
Ironically, SEIU lawyers had blocked an earlier petition filed by Brown for a decertification election on the grounds that, although he followed the misleading language on the NLRB’s website, his petition was technically filed two days late.
In October 2018, Brown petitioned for a vote to remove the SEIU as monopoly bargaining agent for him and his coworkers. Despite having followed the NLRB website’s instructions on union decertification petitions, including collecting signatures from over 30 percent of his colleagues as required, union officials claimed Brown’s decertification petition was untimely.
Brown then sought free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to request a review. Foundation staff attorneys asked the NLRB to overturn the Regional Director’s decision and permit Brown and his coworkers to vote on whether to oust the union. Before an appeal of the decision to reject the petition as untimely could be ruled on by the NLRB, it was made moot by a subsequent petition for a decertification vote that was clearly timely under the Board’s rules.
The NLRB conducted a secret ballot decertification election in January, in which a majority of the workers voted to remove the union. After the SEIU’s objections were denied by the NLRB Regional Director as untimely, the Regional Director issued an order officially certifying the election results.
Springfield, VA (February 7, 2019) – The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted an amicus curiae brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in a case involving a union’s challenge to part of Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law that allows workers to cut off dues payments at any time with 30 days notice. The State of Wisconsin filed its cert petition in Allen v. International Association of Machinists in January asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law, passed in 2015, makes union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary. That fundamental aspect of the law remains in effect after a separate union legal challenge to that aspect failed and is not part of the case that the Supreme Court has been asked to hear.
To ensure workers could exercise their Right to Work, a provision in the law allows employees to revoke their authorization for union officials to deduct union dues or fees at any time and requires that union officials stop these unauthorized deductions within 30 days. The provision protects workers from “window period” schemes often enforced by union officials to limit workers from revoking authorization for dues or fee deductions except for a few days annually.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that this part of the statute is preempted by federal law. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s Sea Pak v. Industrial, Technical, & Professional Employees decision issued in 1971, which the state of Wisconsin is now asking the High Court to revisit.
The Foundation’s amicus brief asks the High Court to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision because federal law allows Wisconsin to protect employees from forced payments, including from union-created limitations on cutting off dues.
As the amicus brief notes, Congress left the final decision about whether to permit, outlaw, or limit compulsory unionism to individual states under Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This includes allowing states to set a stricter standard for when union officials must halt unauthorized dues or fees deductions than the after one year maximum prescribed by the NLRA.

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