Right to Work Blog

Often the Supreme Court — with the help of the National Right to Work Foundation staff — is the last place workers can go to protect their rights from Big Labor bosses. That’s why Right to Work staff lawyers made their 14th trip to the Supreme Court for oral arguments in the Daniel Locke v. Edward Karass case on October 6.

The case centers on previous court rulings that help employees not protected by Right to Work laws to refrain from joining a union. Union officials may still force non-members to pay union fees as a condition of employment; however, unions cannot force them to pay for activities like union politics and lobbying. But where to draw the line? The case will set criteria for determining whether an employee can be forced to fund Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Stefan Gleason, of the Foundation, takes an in depth look at the case for the Capital Research organization.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission [FEC] asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

To read the rest of the Foundation’s press release on the FEC complaint, click here.

About two years ago, we wrote about Elizabeth “Penny” Pinchler, a union worker whose privacy rights were violated by UNITE union activists. She filed a suit in federal court and the “. . . union may be held liable for punitive damages due to privacy violations under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act - and U.S. District Courts have discretion to award additional damages where a defendant repeatedly discloses the personal information it improperly obtained, the 3rd Circuit has ruled.”

As reported by the Lawyers Weekly USA Staff:

A group of plaintiffs filed suit against the union, alleging violations of the Act.

The union had launched an organizing campaign targeting an industrial laundry company, and noted the license plates of employees’ cars entering and leaving company parking lots. The union then accessed motor vehicle records based on the license plates and made house calls, seeking to get the laundry company’s employees to join the union’s campaign.

A U.S. District Court awarded the plaintiffs $2,500 each and enjoined the union from further use of their personal information.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing they should have been awarded punitive damages as well as $5,000 each - $2,500 for the unauthorized access and as well as $2,500 for the subsequent use of their personal information.

The court agreed that even though the Act makes no mention of a right to a jury trial, the plaintiffs were eligible for a trial on the issue of punitive damages based on their Seventh Amendment rights.

“The [Act] provides redress for violation of a person’s protected interest in the privacy of his or her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein. . . . [W]e hold that the issue of punitive damages in cases sounding in tort (such as [cases under the Act]) ‘were decided by [a] jury in suits at common law at the time the Seventh Amendment was adopted.’ . . . Trial issues of willfulness and recklessness are common factual issues for juries to determine,” the court said.

Next, the court determined that although “both obtaining and using motor vehicle information for an impermissible purpose violate the [Act] . . . it does not follow that each independent violation entitles plaintiffs to a separate liquidated damages award. . . . Congress clearly contemplated that in most cases, a defendant who obtained motor vehicle information would put it to some use. Therefore, given Congress’s use of the term ‘liquidated damages’ and the $2,500 amount provided, we conclude that this amount encompasses both aspects of a defendant’s ‘breach’ of the [Act] - one instance of obtaining and one of use - and that the defendant is limited to one liquidated damage award in this situation. A contrary holding would effectively result in a minimum award of $5,000 for every violation of the [Act] - a result we do not believe Congress intended.”
However, the court said that U.S. District Courts have discretion to grant plaintiffs additional damages “if, after obtaining a plaintiff’s personal information in violation of the [Act], [defendants] repeatedly use or disclose that personal information.”

The court also said that such liquidated damages were appropriate even where plaintiffs did not have any actual damages.

The U.S. District Court has pinned back the ears of the Utah political class, particularly Lieutenant Governor Herbert — slapping down key provisions of their unconstitutional campaign finance regulations. The law was exploited by political opponents to muzzle — even criminalize — certain speech.

Read on at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a news release announcing parallel federal lawsuits concerning illegal forced dues:

With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.” . . .

In June, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys filed a lawsuit in North Carolina state court on behalf of 16 AT&T employees against Communications Workers of America local union bosses who illegally released their confidential personal information, including their social security numbers as retaliation for exercising their right to refrain from union membership.

As two of the workers explain in the latest Right to Work video report, union bosses had a history of intimidating workers and failing to provide adequate representation.

For more background information on the case, the Foundation’s press release is available online here. The Burlington Times-News’ coverage of the lawsuit is available online here.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation just issued the following news release.

SEIU’s new rule forces local affiliates to raise PAC money or kick in workers’ forced union dues and pay penalties

Washington, DC (July 17, 2008) – The National Right to Work Foundation has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice open investigations into a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its recent convention.

After reviewing a new amendment to the SEIU constitution, Foundation staff attorneys have concluded that the union and its officers may be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets.

“SEIU bosses are making a mockery of federal law. It’s vital the Department of Justice and Department of Labor take action now before the damage is done,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Elections are a cornerstone of our democratic republic, and we need to do everything possible to ensure the results aren’t tainted by unlawful union activism that violates the rights of rank-and-file workers.”

However, federal labor law forbids unions from political fundraising through the imposition of mandatory financial penalties and it prohibits the conversion of union dues to “hard money.” In addition to asking for a Department of Labor investigation, the coercive nature of the amendment’s punitive mechanism violates core provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and warrants a Department of Justice criminal prosecution.

Read the entire news release here.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has a new video.

In the latest update to Right to Work’s YouTube channel, Daniel Locke, lead plaintiff in the Foundation’s Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case, discusses why he felt the need to file suit against Maine State Employees Association union officials.

Also in the video, Foundation president Mark Mix explains what is at stake in the case, and another Maine state employee, Mark Turek, discusses his decision to quit his job rather than be forced to pay union dues to a union he disagreed with.

The United States Supreme Court has overturned a 9th Circuit Court ruling that tried to legitimize a massive Big Labor forced-unionism scheme.

As reported by Tony Mouro of the First Amendment Center:

By a 7-2 vote, the Court ruled that federal labor law prevents California from restricting the ability of employers to speak out against union organizing.

The state law, according to the Court, violated “Congress’ express protection of free debate” concerning unionization, and congressional desire to avoid regulation within “a zone protected and reserved for market freedom.” . . .

The California law, similar to statutes on the books or under debate in 20 other states, said that any employer receiving state funds through grants or contracts cannot use those funds — even when commingled with other money — to “assist, promote or deter union organizing.” The law also established what the Court said was a “formidable enforcement scheme” that required employers to maintain records that would establish whether state funds they received were used for purposes related to union organizing. . . .

“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,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which advocates measures that prevent employees in unionized workplaces from being coerced to join unions.

Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the decision as well. “Today the Supreme Court declared that it’s unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act for a state to muzzle employers’ speech rights.”

Another case of worker intimidation by a union is proceeding. An appeal of an unfair labor case, filed by a nurse from the Pomona (California) Valley Hospital, has been granted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

As reported by Inland Newspapers’ Monica Rodriguez:

Nurse Carole Jeane Baderscher first filed a complaint with the NLRB in October with assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation . . . .

In the complaint, Baderscher said the Service Employees International Union [SEIU] Local 121RN, which represents about 1,000 registered nurses at the hospital, put out information that threatened nurses who crossed picket lines during a strike planned for the end of the year. The strike was averted after the union and the hospital reached an agreement.

The complaint said the union put out a flier that said the union would seek dues not paid during the strike and threatened them with jail time if they crossed the picket line. Members of the union said at the time the information was meant for hospital administrators and had been posted on the union’s Web site.