Majority of Workers at JCIM Grand Rapids Plant Seek Ejection of UAW Union

Grand Rapids workers want UAW union out while organizers attempt to force their way into JCIM’s Holland plant

Grand Rapids, MI - With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Johnson Controls (JCIM) employee at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood has filed a decertification petition seeking an election to oust the United Auto Workers (UAW) union as the JCIM workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.

The development is another blow to the UAW union hierarchy which has taken a major public relations hit in recent months because of its role in driving the Big Three automakers to the brink of bankruptcy.

JCIM worker Dawn Lambert filed the decertification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which should conduct a secret-ballot election to determine whether or not a majority of the workforce wants to retain the UAW union as their monopoly bargaining agent. Under federal labor law governing the private sector, once the NLRB grants union officials monopoly bargaining status, it is illegal for any present or future employees – whether they are members of the union or not – to negotiate with their employer for themselves unless they can prove that the union hierarchy does not retain majority support.

Because a clear majority of the employees at the Talon Court facility in Kentwood have expressed their intent to remove the UAW, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have also sent a letter to JCIM management demanding that they cease further contract negotiations and also withdraw recognition of what is now a minority union. Under the law, recognizing and negotiating with a union that does not have majority support is an unfair labor practice.

The decertification drive against the UAW in Kentwood comes amidst a UAW campaign to unionize JCIM workers in nearby Holland. In Holland, UAW union bosses are pressuring JCIM to provide union organizers with access to company facilities and personal information about its employees, including their names, phone numbers, and home addresses.  Numerous employees at the JCIM Holland facility have responded by sending JCIM a letter asking that the company not release their personal information to the UAW union. To view a sample of the letter, click here.

Union bosses use this information to pressure employees to sign union authorization cards at work and at home. History shows that during “card check” campaigns union organizers frequently harass and even mislead workers into signing these cards. Once union officials collect signed cards from a majority of the workers, JCIM in Holland could be forced to recognize the union as the monopoly bargaining agent of all employees in the bargaining unit, even for those workers who would prefer to negotiate their own wages and working conditions based on their individual merit.

“Employees are apparently sick and tired of the UAW bosses’ role in fomenting conflict in the workplace, job losses, corruption, and Far Left political activism,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Tenet Nurses’ Unfair Labor Practice Charges Derail Union Officials’ Sham Election

National legal aid foundation puts brakes on collusive arrangement that would force nurses into union ranks

Houston, Texas (November 11, 2008) – Federal labor prosecutors have blocked a so-called “consent election” sought by the Tenet Healthcare Corporation and the California Nurses Association (CNA) while the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducts an inquiry into the legality of a secret backroom deal entered into by Tenet and CNA officials.

The National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Director heeded the wishes of Houston-area nurses who filed unfair labor practice charges against Tenet and the CNA with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation. The scheduled “consent election” would have determined whether the CNA became the monopoly bargaining agent of nurses at the Houston Northwest Medical Center.

Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks location, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Medical Center, filed the charges on August 12 with the National Labor Relations Board in Fort Worth. The charges allege that an “Election Procedures Arrangement” Tenet and the CNA secretly agreed to violates employees’ rights.

The nurses’ charges detail how the agreement, signed by Tenet and CNA officials, subverts the NLRB’s role in supervising union certification elections and bypasses critical employee protections. The agreement calls for the NLRB merely to count ballots and “certify” the union without providing oversight for the actual process.

Tenet is also charged with providing unlawful assistance to CNA union organizers and discriminating against nurses opposed to unionization. Tenet managers were forbidden from answering workers’ questions about unionization, and employees who opposed a union presence in the workplace were prevented from using company facilities to express their views. CNA organizers, on the other hand, were given wide-ranging access to company grounds to facilitate unionization.

“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting to corral unwilling nurses across the state of Texas into union ranks.” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “If similar agreements elsewhere are any indication, CNA may have sold out employees’ interests to become Tenet’s favored union. We’re pleased that the NLRB stepped up to investigate the matter before proceeding with more of these sham consent elections.”

The NLRB’s decision places the “consent election” on indefinite hold pending the outcome of the unfair labor practice charges.

Worker Seeks Injunction to Prevent Unwanted Union from Acquiring Confidential Personal Information

Union sought quid pro quo from company to unionize its employees

Boca Raton, Florida (November 6, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, an employee at a Mardi Gras Gaming facility has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent UNITE HERE Local 355 union officials from obtaining illegal assistance in pressuring workers to unionize – including possession of workers’ personal addresses and other private information.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that union officials violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) by entering into an agreement with Mardi Gras Gaming that allows the union access to information about nonunion employees, use of the employer’s property for organizing, and control over the employer’s communications with workers. The LMRA expressly forbids employers from giving “any money or other thing of value” to unions.

The LMRA’s prohibition on transfers of things of value from employers to unions is intended to prevent deals that induce union officials to place their own interests or the interests of employers above the workers themselves.

The Mardi Gras Gaming facility is not yet unionized, but in August of 2004, management entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Local 355. In return for a union guarantee not to picket, boycott, or strike against the facility, Mardi Gras Gaming agreed to hand over employees’ personal contact information – including home addresses – to union organizers, grant union officials access to Mardi Gras facilities for the purpose of organizing, and to refrain from requesting a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether its employees actually want to unionize. This quid pro quo arrangement is of substantial monetary value to Local 355, as it would dramatically reduce the cost of successfully unionizing workers at the Mardi Gras facility.

Such so-called “neutrality agreements” between companies and unions give union organizers license to browbeat and intimidate workers into acceding to unionization. Armed with employees’ home addresses and access to company facilities, union officials frequently harass workers on and off the job until they agree to sign cards that are then counted as “votes” for unionization. In other Foundation-assisted cases, employees have testified to and documented the pressure, bribery, and outright fraud union organizers use to obtain signed authorization cards.

“UNITE HERE bosses made a secret deal to force Mardi Gras workers into the union whether they like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We intend to shut down this major violation of federal law and employee freedom.”

Nurses Attack Backroom Deal Between Tenet and CNA To Force Texas Nurses Into Union Ranks

Right to Work attorneys hit union and hospital chain with federal unfair labor practice charges for statewide scheme to bypass employee protections

Houston, Texas (August 12, 2008) – Two registered nurses at Houston-based Tenet Healthcare medical centers have filed federal charges against the California Nurses Association (CNA) union and Tenet, after union officials and Tenet entered into agreements designed to force nurses into CNA union ranks.

Esther Marissa Cuellar, a nurse at Tenet’s Cypress Fairbanks location, and Linda D. Bertrand, a nurse at Tenet’s Park Plaza Medical Center, filed the unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 16 in Fort Worth, Texas with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The charges focus on a so-called “Election Procedures Agreement” (EPA) between Tenet officials and CNA union bosses designed to assist the CNA in corralling nurses into the union. The agreement affects Tenet locations across Texas. So far CNA organizers have obtained union monopoly bargaining power at Cypress Fairbanks, and they have campaigns underway at other Houston-area hospitals, including Park Plaza.

The nurses’ charges list multiple violations of employee rights, all designed to make it more difficult for nurses to resist unionization by the power hungry California union officials. The charges detail how the agreement signed by Tenet and CNA officials subverts the NLRB’s role in supervising union certification elections and bypasses employee protections. While eliminating NLRB oversight of election conduct, the agreement calls for the NLRB to merely count ballots and “certify” the union.

The unfair labor practice charges also detail unlawful organizing assistance given by Tenet to CNA organizers in violation of federal statutes and a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Under the agreement, Tenet managers are gagged from responding to employee questions about unionization, and nurses who oppose the union have been forbidden from using any Tenet facilities to express their views. Yet pro-CNA nurses and non-employee union organizers are given broad access to Tenet facilities.

“California union militants, with the assistance of complicit Tenet officials, are attempting to sweep nurses across the state of Texas into union ranks, like it or not,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “What isn’t yet clear is exactly what Tenet received in exchange for helping union officials gain access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in union dues. If similar agreements elsewhere are any indication, CNA may have sold out the employees’ interests to become Tenet’s favored union.”

The charges, which will now be investigated by NLRB officials, also state that the EPA scheme amounts to illegal pre-recognition bargaining, with union officials negotiating substantive terms of employment for nurses before they have the legal authority to represent a single employee.

--

Case Documents:

NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Charges

Tenet-CNA "Election Procedures Agreement" 

High Court Urged to Disallow Expansion of Union Monopoly Power to Undercut Workers’ Rights

National Right to Work Foundation files amicus brief in pending Supreme Court case that examines whether union bosses may waive employees’ statutory rights

Washington, DC (July 15, 2008) – Today the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed arguments with the United States Supreme Court seeking a reaffirmation of a lower court ruling that disallowed deals between union officials and employers to undercut employees’ statutory rights.

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 14 Penn Plaza LLC and Temco Service Industries, Inc. v. Steven Pyett, Thomas O’Connell, and Michael Phillips, a case which could have far-reaching implications for employees laboring under union monopoly bargaining contracts.

Pyett, O’Connell, and Phillips sued in federal District Court alleging that their employer had illegally discriminated against them on the basis of age, in violation of federal, New York state, and New York City civil rights statutes. The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the employees, as union members, had waived their right to a judicial forum for their statutory discrimination claims and sought to compel them into arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Citing a line of case law dating back to 1974, the District Court ruled that union-negotiated waivers of statutory rights in collective bargaining agreements are unenforceable, and thus the employees retained the right to a judicial forum. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on appeal.

In its brief, the Foundation explains that the regime of union monopoly bargaining – under which a union is installed as the exclusive representative of all employees in negotiations with their employer, even those who don’t want the union’s “representation” – cannot be construed to even further trump individual rights. For an individual’s right to a judicial forum to be waived in an employment contract, it must be done voluntarily. In a collective bargaining agreement, however, workers do not necessarily consent to waive their judicial forum rights, even if the contract claims that they do. For example, union officials may negotiate the arbitration clause with the employer, but they are not required to put the contract to a vote or disclose all its terms.

Even if the union membership votes to approve the contract and arbitration clause, members who chose not to vote or voted against ratification cannot be said to have voluntarily waived their rights. Furthermore, employees who started working for the employer after the contract was ratified never voted for it. Most important, employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership almost never are allowed to vote on labor contracts.

“We hope the Court will not permit further expansion of monopoly bargaining privileges given to union officials,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “This case also concerns Big Labor’s national organizing strategy. Union officials want the ability to offer employers immunity from litigation over employees’ statutory rights if an employer will just recognize the union.”

###

The Foundation's amicus brief can be downloaded here.

Employees Toss Out Unwanted Teamsters Union Bosses After Coercive Union Card-Check Campaign

Employees vote overwhelmingly against Teamster “representation,” utilizing newly-won National Right to Work Foundation legal precedent

Sacramento, California (July 3, 2008) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, employees at the USF Reddaway trucking company recently voted to eject the Chauffeur Teamsters and Helpers Local 150 union from their workplace. The Teamsters pushed their way into the facility in December of 2007, when USF Reddaway voluntarily recognized the union without a secret ballot election.

Under the card-check organizing scheme union agents use to demonstrate supposed employee support, employees are denied access to a secret ballot election and are instead forced to publicly declare their support or opposition to unionization during face-to-face confrontations with professional union organizers. Employees report that, during card-check union organizers often harass, mislead, or outright lie to employees to acquire their signatures.

Recognizing the coercive nature of card-check organizing, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled in the Foundation’s Dana/Metaldyne case that employees may initiate a union decertification petition immediately following recognition if a union acquires its monopoly bargaining privileges through card-check. The National Law Journal has described Dana/Metaldyne as one of the “most significant decisions” of the Board in the last four years.

Dissatisfied with the results of the coercive card-check drive, several employees at USF Reddaway took advantage of the Dana decision and immediately circulated a union decertification petition. After a majority of workers signed the petition, Teamsters officials filed so-called “blocking charges” to short-circuit employees’ wishes.

Foundation attorneys responded by filing unfair labor practice charges on behalf of several USF Reddaway employees. The charges cited the suspicious circumstances surrounding the union’s original card-check drive, alleging that the union did not enjoy the majority support of employees. To resolve this legal impasse, both sides agreed to withdraw their charges in favor of an NLRB-supervised election to determine whether workers supported unionization. On June 16 and 17, over 60 percent of USF Reddaway employees voted against union representation, finally expelling the unwanted Teamsters from the workplace.

“While we applaud the employees’ resolve in obtaining their decertification election, this incident highlights the controversial nature of card-check organizing,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Allowing union activists to pressure workers into signing authorization cards is an inherently unfair process that not only subjects vulnerable employees to bullying and harassment, but it also imposes a union on them that they often do not want.”

Worker Advocate Praises Today’s Supreme Court Decision Overturning California Law Facilitating Coercive Union Organizing

U.S. Supreme Court agrees with National Right to Work Foundation’s arguments

Washington, DC (June 19, 2008) – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Chamber v. Brown case in which the Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the ultimate outcome.

“In its Chamber v. Brown decision, the Supreme Court correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold a California law which increases pressure on employees to join unwanted unions.

“The law was nothing more than an underhanded attempt by union officials to use public funds to corral California workers into their forced dues-paying ranks, and the High Court was correct to find that the law is pre-empted by federal labor law.

“Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers would have insisted that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials were wrong to use the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies are having trouble persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.”

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that would have effectively forced coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds.

### 

The decision can be downloaded here.

Bush Labor Board Authorizes Congressmen to Issue Union “Certifications” Intended to Deceive Employees

Labor Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) conducted televised sham union “certification” at union hall just days before the real vote

Atlantic City, NJ (June 3, 2008) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a controversial and ground-breaking ruling that gives Congressmen and other public officials the green light to stage fake “certification” ceremonies that give the misimpression of official government recognition of a union during “card check” organizing drives.

The case dismissed objections to the conduct of Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and other government officials who participated in a televised sham union “certification” ceremony and public announcement that workers had selected a union immediately prior to a NLRB certification election last summer at the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City.

The NLRB’s ruling raised the burden of proof requirements for arguing that conduct tainted a certification election. Earlier Board law did not require challengers to present incontrovertible evidence that many employees were actually aware of the objectionable conduct – only that it was likely that many were.

In addition to filing a brief supporting Trump Plaza’s request that the Board set aside the election, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed unfair labor practice charges and a House Ethics Committee complaint.

The Foundation’s unfair labor practice charge, which has been held in abeyance pending the appeal regarding certification, points out that Congressman Andrews led an extraordinary public event (which was televised and disseminated by other media) and aided UAW union officials in interfering with the free exercise of employee rights in choosing whether to unionize. “Acting under the false imprimatur of NLRB authority,” Andrews counted union authorization cards that were not necessarily intended by employees to be considered formal votes, and he signed and announced a “Certification of Majority Status” for unionization.

Andrews’s participation, given his position as Chairman of House of Representative’s subcommittee that oversees labor issues, made the union’s televised public announcement of its “certification” particularly problematic. Given his prominent role in the creation of federal labor policy, employees could think that the union had already been formally installed, or that the union’s election was a forgone conclusion. As the Foundation’s brief in the case pointed out, Andrew’s actions likely had the effects of suppressing turnout for the election, and inducing employees to vote for a “pre-certified” union, thus disenfranchising employees and destroying the “laboratory conditions” under which NLRB elections are required to take place.

“The Bush Labor Board has just opened the floodgates. Workers will be faced with union officials’ aggressive use of Members of Congress during coercive union organizing campaigns,” said Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.

###

A copy of the NLRB's decision can be downloaded here.

The Foundation's amicus brief to the board can be downloaded here.

Employee Rights Group Opposes Federal Bureaucracy’s Devious Proposal to Legitimize Abusive Union Organizing Campaigns

Proposed NLRB rules contradict current statutes and would effectively “rent out” the federal agency to rubber stamp coercive unionization drives

Washington, DC (March 28, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed its opposition to a package of sweeping rule changes proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucracy that would further undermine the right of American workers to choose freely whether to form a union. The Foundation filed its comments on behalf of itself and three employees victimized by coercive “card check” unionization drives in California, Ohio, and South Carolina, respectively.

Under the proposed rules, colluding union officials and company officials could trigger a quick-snap union certification election even when no employees have expressed any interest in unionization. The proposed changes would toss aside traditional NLRB certification safeguards while effectively barring employees from challenging any misconduct or unfair labor practices.

Additionally, an NLRB rubberstamp could be obtained despite strategic gerrymandering of bargaining units and even where no advance notice of the election is provided to employees.

The proposed NLRB rules also appear to contradict the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally shortening the statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges from six months to seven days. The proposed rules would also unlawfully leave employee allegations of misconduct to the unappealable discretion of NLRB Regional Directors, cutting the Board and appellate courts out of the process.

“The NLRB’s devious proposal would ‘rent out’ federal oversight of representation elections to union officials and certain employers who have caved in to extortionate pressure campaigns intended to induce them to hand over their employees to forced unionism,” stated Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB should not further erode employees’ freedom to resist unwanted unionization, nor should it so crassly provide a veneer of legitimacy to coercive and often illegal union organizing tactics.”

The Foundation’s comments cite that the proposed changes would rapidly accelerate a trend of coercive “top down” union organizing drives. Such drives often include “corporate campaigns” where a non-union company is targeted with ugly PR onslaughts, trumped up lawsuits, and political pressure.

“In short, the proposed rules must be viewed in the context of union efforts to destroy both the full and open debate inherent in… the NLRA-established secret ballot election process, and replace them with “neutrality agreements,” forced employer silence, non-existent election campaigns, employees’ inability to object or organize a movement to oppose unionization, and union selection via either “card check” or rapid-fire consent elections,” wrote Foundation staff attorneys Glenn Taubman and Bill Messenger.

Worker Advocate Praises U.S. Supreme Court Review of Ninth Circuit Ruling Endorsing Coercive Union Organizing

**Springfield, VA (November 20, 2007)** – Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, made the following statement in response to today’s granting of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-supported Chamber v. Brown appeal.

An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed two of its earlier appellate rulings by a vote of 8-3, upholding a state law that will effectively force coercive union organizing upon employees of private companies who receive state funds. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court” brief) urging U.S. Supreme Court review.

“In a controversial decision with national implications, the activist Ninth Circuit in Chamber v. Brown upheld a California law which increases pressure on employees to join potentially unwanted unions.

“This special-interest state statute is pre-empted by federal labor law, which is supposed to protect employees from pressure to unionize by union officials and other entities. We’re thankful the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

“The practical effect is that employees of private employers wishing to accept funds from the state are denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Their employers could ultimately be blackballed from government contracts unless they clear the path for union organizers to recruit new forced-dues-paying union members. Moreover, union organizers will insist that the state law entitles them to sweeping access to company facilities, employees’ private personal information, and the power to sidestep the less-abusive secret ballot election process for determining whether employees actually want a union.

“California officials are using the heavy hand of government to trample upon workers’ rights. Because union hierarchies seem to be having difficulties persuading employees to join unions voluntarily, they have resorted to coercive tactics in order to maintain the flow of forced union dues.

“The National Right to Work Foundation denounces this rogue appellate ruling and applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review it.”