Worker Advocate Launches Legal Task Force to Protect Indiana Right to Work Freedom

Law prevents union officials from extracting union dues from workers as a condition of employment

Washington, DC (February 2, 2012) – The National Right to Work Foundation announced today that it is launching a legal task force aimed at protecting Indiana’s newly-enacted Right to Work law.

Union officials publicly floated the idea of challenging the law in Indiana's courts before the law was even passed by the Indiana state senate.

Indiana is the nation's 23rd Right to Work state after the state senate passed the bill and Governor Mitch Daniels signed the bill into law on Wednesday.

Foundation attorneys have successfully defended state Right to Work laws in the past, including Oklahoma's. The task force has already examined reported union lines of attack and determined that Indiana’s Right to Work law is on sound legal ground.

"Union bosses want to undo what thousands of Hoosier citizens have worked hard for over the past decade," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Because union partisans cannot win the hearts and minds of Indiana's workers and voters, they seek to have the courts strike down Indiana’s popular Right to Work law for them."

In addition to defending the Right to Work law from spurious union legal challenges, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys are, as always, available to give free legal aid to employees seeking to exercise their Right to Work. Because the Indiana law applies only to forced dues clauses entered into after March 14, 2012, many employees may not be able to cut off all dues immediately. However, those employees can still exercise their right to refrain from formal union membership and cut off union dues being spent on politics.

Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans support the Right to Work principle, including 80 percent of union members.

Information about Indiana's Right to Work law, including how Indiana employees can exercise their Right to Work can be found on the Foundation's website: www.nrtw.org.

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.

If Obama's NLRB appointments are unconstitutional, then the Board has only two members and lacks a quorum to enact rules or enforce federal labor law under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent issued in 2010. Foundation attorneys are raising the issue now, at the earliest possible opportunity, while anticipating that the issue will eventually reach the federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The cases involved are: Richards & Yost v. Steelworkers; Sands v. Food & Commercial Workers; Gray v. Coupled Products, LLC. & UAW Local 2049; Lugo v. Electrical Workers Local 34; Geary v. Nurses & Allied Professionals Local 5008; and Stewart v. UFCW Local 99 & Fry’s Foods of AZ.

"Barack Obama's so-called recess appointments to the Labor Board clearly violate the U.S. Constitution," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Because the Board does not have a legitimate quorum, it must cease hearing Foundation cases until a legitimate quorum is established."

The Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced last week that a panel will investigate the constitutionality of the purported recess appointments next month.

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

Right to Work Foundation Announces New Addition to Legal Team

Regent-trained attorney dedicated to the cause of individual liberty for America's workers

Washington, DC (January 30, 2012) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has hired Sarah Hartsfield of Austin, Texas, as an addition to its legal staff.

Hartsfield is a recently sworn in member of the Virginia State Bar and 2011 graduate of the Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"Sarah brings to the Foundation a real commitment to defending and advancing individual liberty against the injustices of compulsory unionism," said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

"She will assist the Foundation's cutting-edge legal team in defending America's workers from Big Labor's growing influence in the public sector, enforcing individual employees' rights against compulsory unionism, and establishing new precedents to increase workplace freedom for America’s workers."

As the newest of the Foundation's 12 staff attorneys, Hartsfield will help build on the Foundation's litigation record for union-abused workers that includes 15 cases at the United States Supreme Court, seven of which were won in whole or in part, and one of which was argued earlier this month. Currently, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys represent thousands of workers in nearly 200 active cases nationwide.

Before joining the Foundation, Hartsfield served as an intern for the Singer Legal Group in Virginia Beach, Virginia and the Chesapeake Public Defender's Office in Chesapeake, Virginia. She was also an intern, and later an executive assistant, at the Ashcroft Group, L.L.C. in Washington, D.C.

While at Regent, Hartsfield participated in a variety of activities and clubs and was an Associate Member of Regent's Moot Court Board, competed in numerous moot court competitions, and was a member of the Student Ambassador program. She holds a bachelors degree in Government from the University of Texas, where she graduated in 2008.

Read more about the Foundation's legal team here.

Hotel Officials, Union Bosses Hit With Multiple Federal Labor Board Charges for Abusive Organizing Tactics

Union organizers verbally abuse Marriott employees and spy on workers in changing rooms after striking backroom deal with company officials

New York, NY (January 24, 2012) – A group of New York City Marriott (NYSE: MAR) employees – acting on behalf of their coworkers – have filed federal charges against the company and a local union for workplace intimidation and harassment.

The three SoHo Marriott employees filed the charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.

New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council Local 6 union organizers entered into a backroom deal with company officials that allows union organizers unfettered access to the employees in order to install a union in the workplace.

Abusing this privilege, union organizers are attempting to browbeat the workers into supporting the union through a prolonged campaign of intimidation and harassment. Meanwhile, company officials deny workers' attempts to meet on company grounds.

Union officials have used video cameras in employee changing rooms, accessed employee lockers and handled employees' personal possessions, and have even resorted to verbal abuse. Union officials even took photographs of a female employee without her consent while she was changing her uniform in an employee changing room.

Moreover, company and union officials are retaliating against workers who dare to exercise their right to refrain from union affiliation. For example, at least three workers were illegally interrogated and disciplined by company officials at the behest of union bosses.

In response, the workers unanimously signed a petition showing that they do not support the union hierarchy's presence in the workplace.

"Union and company officials have colluded to force the union bosses' so-called 'representation' on these workers," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "Marriott workers are being subjected to a vicious campaign of intimidation – including sexual harassment – at the hands of forced-dues hungry union bosses and with the approval of weak-kneed company officials."

"New York desperately needs a Right to Work law to protect workers from forced unionism abuses like this in the future," added Mix.

Minnesota Child Care Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

Child care providers fight against Governor Dayton’s dictate that pushes childcare business owners into union

Minneapolis, MN (January 19, 2012) – A group of home-based child care providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Governor Mark Dayton's recent executive order designed to forcibly unionize the state's providers.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester filed the suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

Parrish and other providers seek to halt Dayton's executive order intended to designate American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials as the monopoly bargaining and political representatives of thousands of providers in the state.

Home-based child care and personal care providers are challenging similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in numerous states across the country, including Michigan and Illinois.

Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, association, and petition of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because the government does not have the power to force citizens to accept the government's handpicked political representation to lobby itself.

"This union boss power grab scheme is nothing more than pure political payback and was popularized by disgraced Governors Gray Davis of California and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "The forced political association that is occurring in the North Star State as a result of Governor Dayton's dictate is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear."

The lawsuit is the second legal challenge to Minnesota’s child care provider unionization scheme, but the first in federal court. Another lawsuit challenges Dayton’s authority to enact the scheme under Minnesota law.

LA Times Printing Press Workers Slap Teamster Union Bosses with Federal Charges

Teamster union hierarchy continues three-year-long campaign of harassment and intimidation

Los Angeles, CA (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Los Angeles Times newspaper printing press operators have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for violating their rights.

Leon Carey, Jr. and James Clayton filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Wednesday.

Recently, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT) Local 140-N union and company officials entered into a contract which purports to require all employees to be full-dues-paying union members, even though full membership cannot be enforced under federal law. Moreover, union officials failed to inform workers of their rights, including their right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck case.

Instead, Teamster Local 140-N union officials sent the workers a letter ordering them to join the union and pay full dues or face termination while ignoring the workers' previous letters informing union officials that they were refraining from union membership.

Because California is not a Right to Work state, employees can be forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment. However, employees cannot be legally compelled to join a union against their will and cannot be compelled to pay union dues used for union politics and member-only events.

"Teamster union officials have conducted an illegal campaign to extract full union dues from these workers wanting to exercise their rights to refrain from formal union membership, even though union officials can still force these workers under their control regardless of their union membership status," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Making union membership and dues-payment completely voluntary is the only way to prevent this type of abuse in the future, which is why California desperately needs a Right to Work law."

Workers in 22 states enjoy the protections of a state Right to Work law and 80 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of union members, support the Right to Work principle.

Michigan Childcare Providers File Federal Appeal Seeking Refunds for Providers Forcefully Unionized

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue federal class-action lawsuit against union officials to recover millions in illegally confiscated dues

Cincinnati, OH (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.

Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM "representation" and forcing them to pay union dues.

Under Granholm's direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers' "management." Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.

Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.

The five childcare providers won a settlement with Governor Rick Snyder ensuring that Michigan will no longer be able to force home-based childcare providers into union ranks. However CCPTM union officials still possess forced union dues previously collected from tens of thousands of providers.

The plaintiffs and National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to overturn a lower court's ruling denying the workers class-action status in their quest to obtain refunds from the CCPTM hierarchy.

"Our work won't be over until UAW and AFSCME union bosses are forced to return over two million dollars in forced dues they extracted from unwilling childcare providers since 2008," said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director for the National Right to Work Foundation. "No worker should be compelled to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, which is why Michigan desperately needs Right to Work protections for its workers."

Worker Advocate Challenges Constitutionality of Obama's Controversial Labor Board Recess Appointments

Case over controversial NLRB posting becomes first legal challenge to Presidential attempt to make "recess appointments" without actual recess of the Senate

Washington, DC (January 13, 2012) – Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed a motion in federal court challenging the legality of President Barack Obama's recent purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The legal challenge is part of a larger case attacking controversial new NLRB rules that require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never violated or been accused of breaking federal law. The NLRB's posting rules do not require union officials to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues. Currently employers can only be required to post notices if the Board has ruled that a violation of labor law occurred.

The Foundation's case has been consolidated with other legal challenges to the biased NLRB notice posting rules brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), and two small businesses. Those parties filed the joint motion today raising the issue of the NLRB's lack of authority to implement the rule given the unprecedented recess appointments.

The new filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case comes after NLRB lawyers notified the court that President Obama's recent recess appointees were now parties in the ongoing legal battle. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's New Process Steel decision, the NLRB needs three members to act. However three of the five current NLRB members were installed by unilateral Presidential appointment earlier this year, despite the fact that the Senate was not in a self-declared recess.

In the motion papers, Foundation attorneys argue that the controversial appointees to the Board are not legitimate because the U.S. Senate is still in session per the body's rules, so there was no "recess" for the President to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Therefore the NLRB lacks the necessary quorum to implement the new posting rules. Foundation attorneys are asking the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the three recess appointees.

"President Barack Obama has already shown time and again that he is willing to abuse his executive authority to force more workers into union-dues-paying ranks," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Now Obama's executive abuse jeopardizes the constitutional balance our country holds very dear, all in the name of paying back his Big Labor benefactors."

The implementation of the NLRB's new posting rules, originally supposed to be in August of last year, has been twice delayed due to the legal challenge in the Foundation's case. The rules are currently scheduled to be effective on April 30, 2012.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is also a party in the case, but is not party to the Foundation's motion.

Supreme Court Reviews SEIU Political Fundraising Scheme

Supreme Court has opportunity to close union boss political fundraising loophole

Washington, DC (January 10, 2012) - Today, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys will make their fifteenth appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court, this time representing California state employees challenging a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political fee charged to workers regardless of their union membership status. Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement regarding today's hearing:

"Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case about union bosses using state workers' hard earned money for politics without the workers’ permission.

"Attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation – the nation's leading advocate for workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – will argue that the workers should not be forced to pay for union officials’ political spending.

"The Court should knock down this scheme – closing a giant loophole that allows union bosses to confiscate money from workers' paychecks for political spending sprees – and send a message to union officials, once again, that forced political conformity is wrong."

Boeing Employees Hit Machinist Union with Charge for Discriminating against Workers in Right to Work States

Union bosses abuse process to force Boeing to locate production in state without a Right to Work law

Washington, DC (December 28, 2011) – Three Charleston-area Boeing company (NYSE: BA) employees filed a federal retaliation charge against the Washington State union behind the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) high-profile case against Boeing for building a new facility in South Carolina.

The Charleston-area Boeing employees filed the unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB Wednesday with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The charge comes in the wake of the recent announcement of a backroom deal cut between IAM, its Local 751 union, and Boeing officials which led to the end of the NLRB's case. The Charleston Boeing employees, who were granted intervenor status in the case by the NLRB in Washington, D.C., were denied participation in the hearing concluding the case.

The charge spells out how IAM union bosses abused the NLRB's adjudicative process to bully Boeing into locating production of the company's 737 Max and future airplane production in Washington State, which does not have a Right to Work law. The IAM union bosses' accusations against Boeing had a chilling effect on Boeing and other companies, deterring them from locating work in South Carolina and other Right to Work states where workers can not be forced to join or pay fees to a union as a job condition.

The charge also details how IAM union bosses retaliated against the Charleston workers after the workers at the Boeing Dreamliner plant expelled the IAM from their workplace before the production line was located there. One of the employees filing the charge led the effort to remove the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union from the Charleston plant.

The charge points out that if the IAM union hierarchy still had a presence in the South Carolina plant, then the South Carolina workers' jobs would not have been at risk. Even NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon – who issued the NLRB's complaint against Boeing – admitted in Congressional testimony that it was inconceivable that IAM union officials would have pursued charges against Boeing if workers had not removed the union from their workplace.

"Workers should be free to choose whether or not to affiliate with a union and not have to worry about their jobs as a result," said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. "The IAM union bosses' dangerous abuse of federal labor law, which is supposedly intended to protect the rights of individual workers, has set a devastating precedent to discourage job providers from locating work in states with Right to Work laws on the books – the very states luring job providers and independent-minded workers alike."

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys have sent a letter to the NLRB's Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) asking him to investigate the conduct of the ALJ overseeing the NLRB's case against Boeing in allowing the backroom deal cut between company and union officials to serve as the basis for the case’s dismissal.