Right to Work Foundation Attorneys Move to Disqualify Controversial Recess Appointees from Six Cases

Argue Labor Board does not have legitimate quorum to hear pending cases

Washington, DC (January 30, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed motions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to disqualify President Barack Obama's recent purported recess appointees to the agency from participating in the Foundation's six cases pending before the Board.

Foundation attorneys argue that the appointments are unconstitutional and, therefore, the Board lacks the quorum necessary to hear Foundation cases. This legal challenge is part of an ongoing controversy over the constitutionality of Obama's recent move to install three members to the NLRB as "recess appointees" despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

Foundation attorneys also were among the first to challenge the constitutionality of Obama's "recess appointments" in federal court. An earlier motion challenging the appointments, filed by the Foundation and other plaintiffs challenging the NLRB’s notice posting rules, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Read the entire release here.

Read one of the Foundation attorneys' motions to disqualify the "recess appointees" here.

Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

Union bosses illegally force Ohio’s teachers to pay for electioneering

Columbus, Ohio (August 5, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union "fees" taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union's regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law.

Read the entire release here.

Worker Advocate Asks Federal Labor Board to Uphold Precedent Disallowing Forced Unionization of Grad Students

Foundation files brief supporting university teaching assistants' First Amendment freedom of association

Washington, DC (July 29, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking the Board to uphold its long-standing precedent to disallow union officials to corral university graduate students working as teaching assistants into unwanted union affiliation.

Foundation attorneys filed the brief with the NLRB in a case involving United Auto Workers (UAW) union organizers’ attempt to forcibly unionize graduate students at New York University (NYU) in New York City and ultimately to force them to pay union dues to maintain their status.

Seven years ago, Foundation attorneys filed an amicus brief in a similar case involving the UAW union attempting to forcibly unionize teaching assistants at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. In that case, the NLRB voted to return to its long-standing position of more than 50 years that teaching assistants have an academic, rather than economic, relationship with universities, and that teaching assistants are not “employees” as defined by federal labor law who can be subjected to union monopoly bargaining.

In their latest brief, Foundation attorneys argue that UAW union lawyers are using the NYU case as a means to overturn the Brown University case, even though the facts are different.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys undercut the union lawyers' arguments for new precedent that establishes teaching assistants as employees of the university, because grades are the central form of compensation for graduate students who are paid to teach, research, or perform temporary work.

Read the entire release here.

Today, House Republican leader John Boehner called on President Barack Obama to veto any controversial legislation that passes during the post-midterm election lame-duck Congressional session. One of those controversial bills is the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

As Right to Work Foundation legal director Ray J. LaJeunesse details in the Spring 2010 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics journal, this draconian bill's three primary provisions contain many injustices toward American workers and job providers.

Regarding the bill's provision to strip workers of their rights to a secret ballot election and opening them up to intimidating "home visits":

...the absence of a formal election process works an obvious unfairness, facilitates intimidation and deception of workers, and runs contrary to the American tradition of secret ballots and the freedom to vote in privacy. The United States Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue, recognizing that “secret elections are generally the most satisfactory—indeed the preferred—method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.”

There also is a serious question whether EFCA will unconstitutionally deny employers and employees their free speech rights... Because there would be no open campaign leading up to a secret-ballot election, EFCA would eliminate open debate, thus curtailing the speech rights of employers and individual employees opposed to the union.

As for the unconstitutational, government-mandated binding arbitration provision:

Mandatory governmentally-imposed binding interest arbitration... runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, in requiring governmentally-imposed arbitrators to dictate contract terms, EFCA would unconstitutionally take the property of employers and give that property to their employees (as wages, for example) for a non-public use, in violation of the takings clause...

And finally, regarding the lopsided nature of the penalties imposed on job providers:

These drastic new penalties for unfair labor practices that apply to employers but not to unions raise concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and may violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

These one-sided changes in the NLRA’s remedial scheme would adversely affect employees as well as employers. With the Damoclean sword of punitive remedies looming, employers faced with union organizing campaigns will be more likely to gag themselves to avoid unfair labor practice charges by unions, thus depriving employees of the “information opposing unionization,” which they have an implicit “right to receive” under NLRA section 7, and which is necessary to make an informed and free choice about whether to support unionization or not.

As LaJeunesse clearly explains, the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill certainly "presents serious legal and policy issues" indeed.

The full article is published in the Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 14, No. 2.