Lucas County Employees Win Back Unconstitutionally Seized Money from AFSCME Union
Employees exercised constitutional right to stop funding union activities, but union-imposed restriction blocked exercise of right for over 90 percent of year
Toledo, OH (April 4, 2023) – Three Lucas County Job and Family Services (JFS) employees have emerged victorious in their federal civil rights lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Ohio Council 8 union. The employees, Penny Wilson, Theresa Fannin, and Kozait Elkhatib, charged AFSCME union bosses in December 2022 with seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment.
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib received free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Buckeye Institute. They asserted their constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. The Court also ruled that union officials can only deduct money from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Now, as part of a settlement, AFSCME Ohio Council 8 must return illegally seized money to each woman, and the union bosses are forbidden from having Lucas County deduct union dues from any of their paychecks going forward. The settlement fully vindicates the employees’ First Amendment Janus rights.
Lucas County Employees Weren’t Informed of First Amendment Right to Abstain from Union Dues
Officials from AFSCME Council 8 and Lucas County JFS enforced a policy against the women which permitted the taking of union dues directly from their wages. According to the policy, employees who wish to stop subsidizing the union have only a handful of days per year in which to do so – an “escape period” that effectively forbids the exercise of their First Amendment Janus rights for more than 90 percent of the year.
AFSCME union officials never informed Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib of this restriction. Union officials also never told the women that they had a First Amendment right under Janus to abstain from dues deductions, or that union dues could only be taken from them if they waived that right.
The employees discovered their Janus rights independently. Each attempted to exercise those rights twice by sending letters to AFSCME union officials stating that they were ending their union memberships and terminating dues deductions. AFSCME union officials denied all three women’s requests, stating that union dues deductions would continue because the letters missed the narrow “escape period” the union imposed.
“Plaintiffs did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights…The restrictions on stopping government dues deductions…are unenforceable as against public policy because the restriction significantly impinges on employees’ First Amendment rights,” read the federal complaint.
Employees Often Must Seek Return of Dues Seized Without Consent
Wilson, Fannin, and Elkhatib’s win is the latest in a chain of successful Foundation-backed lawsuits defending Ohio public servants’ Janus rights. In 2020, for example, Foundation attorneys challenged a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement that AFSCME Ohio Council 11 used to lock public employees out of their Janus rights for three years at a time. Rather than face off against Foundation attorneys, Council 11’s union officials backed down and settled the case. As a result, Foundation attorneys freed almost 30,000 Ohio public employees from the onerous arrangement.
“Once again Foundation-backed Ohio public employees have successfully defended their Janus rights against the schemes of AFSCME union officials, who were more concerned with accumulating dues money than respecting the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “America’s public workers should not have to file federal lawsuits to defend their Janus rights. Instead, before taking dues, union officials should inform workers about their Janus rights and honor those rights.”
“It’s heartening that the union has agreed to resolve this dispute by honoring their former members’ wishes; it’s disappointing that a lawsuit was required to reach that common-sense result,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Another Janus Victory: South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally Seized Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
New Foundation-backed challenges to Janus restrictions also pending at U.S. Supreme Court
Stop Requested: Tyron Foxworth and his fellow South Jersey Transportation Authority bus drivers told union officials to cease union dues to no avail, until Foundation staff attorneys’ lawsuit forced union bosses to back down.
CAMDEN, NJ – Toward the end of 2021, South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) bus driver Tyron Foxworth and his colleagues Doris Hamilton, Karen Burdett, Karen Hairston, Ted Lively, Arlene Gibson, and Stanley Burke decided they had had enough of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) union bosses’ so-called “representation” and opted out of union membership. Union cards they had signed indicated that the union would cease taking money from their paychecks in January 2022.
But, January 2022 came and went, and neither Foxworth nor his fellow independent-minded colleagues saw dues deductions stop. As a result, with free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, they filed a First Amendment federal civil rights lawsuit against the IFPTE union. They argued that union officials violated their First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court precedent by continuing to seize dues despite their objections.
IFPTE Officials Subjected Drivers to Restrictions They Never Knew About
In Janus, the Court declared it a First Amendment violation to force public sector workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. It also ruled that union officials can only deduct dues from the paycheck of a public sector employee who has voluntarily waived his or her Janus rights.
Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in federal court, IFPTE union lawyers backed down and settled the case. As the settlement ordered, union bosses have now given back all money they seized unconstitutionally from Foxworth and his objecting coworkers, plus interest. The settlement also bars the IFPTE union from demanding or seizing any dues from the drivers going forward.
According to Foxworth and his colleagues, IFPTE dues deductions cards led them to believe that dues opt-outs would become effective on either the January or July following a request. However, the union’s monopoly bargaining contract with SJTA recognized dues revocations only in July. The drivers never consented to this greater restriction.
Foundation attorneys argued in the lawsuit that IFPTE union officials, by taking union dues after January 1, 2022, without the workers’ consent, “violate[d] Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech and association.”
Foxworth and his coworkers’ victory is the latest of numerous Foundation-won cases to vindicate American public workers’ First Amendment Janus rights. In the past few years, class action lawsuits brought by Foundation staff attorneys have led to settlements freeing tens of thousands of Ohio public employees from American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union schemes illegally restricting the exercise of their Janus rights.
Courageous public workers from California and Nevada are also asking the Supreme Court to take the next step and declare such Janus restrictions clearly violative of the First Amendment.
Lifeguards, Police Officer Battle Blatantly Unconstitutional Restrictions
Foundation attorneys just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear several Southern California lifeguards’ suit against a so-called “maintenance of membership” scheme that California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials are using to trap the lifeguards in membership and full dues payments years after they resigned, in direct opposition to Janus.
Also awaiting Supreme Court review of her case is Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro, who with Foundation aid is battling an arrangement imposed by Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union officials that forbids the exercise of her Janus rights for over 90 percent of the year.
“Union officials across the country continue to enforce schemes that give them — not the workers they claim to ‘represent– control over the exercise of Janus rights, meaning more money in union coffers while employees’ constitutional rights are squashed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While many union bosses, aware of the indefensibility of their actions, run screaming from facing Foundation attorneys on Janus issues and settle quickly, American public workers should also know that Foundation attorneys will fight all the way up to the Supreme Court to ensure their First Amendment rights are protected.”
California Lifeguards Ask Supreme Court to Blow Whistle on Dues-Trap Scheme
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses’ ‘maintenance of membership’ scheme drowns California lifeguards’ Janus rights for four years
These California lifeguards can ride the waves, but they certainly didn’t “waive” their Janus rights. In their Supreme Court bid, they hope to stop union bosses from locking them out of their First Amendment rights for years.
LOS ANGELES, CA – National Right to Work Foundation client Jennifer Marshall, an Orange County, CA, lifeguard, told the Los Angeles Times in May how hard California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials pushed union membership on her and her colleagues.
“They really pushed us to sign up for the union without a lot of information behind it,” said Marshall. “It was kind of a sign-the-papers-and-we’ll-talk-about-it-later kind of thing.” After she signed up, she hardly ever saw or heard from union officials again but full union dues were coming out of her paycheck.
What she and many of her colleagues, whom union bosses had cajoled into signing up, didn’t expect was how hard it would be to exit a union that didn’t seem to be doing anything for them. When she and her colleagues tried to resign, CSLEA officials told them that they were stuck in both full union dues payments and full union membership until 2023, pursuant to a so-called “maintenance of membership” requirement.
Marshall, along with lead plaintiff Jonathan Savas and 21 other colleagues, sued CSLEA bosses in federal court in 2020 for violating their constitutional rights. They argued the “maintenance of membership” requirement blatantly infringes on their First Amendment rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court declared that public sector workers cannot be forced to bankroll a union without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right to abstain from union payments. The lifeguards also sued the state of California for its role in enforcing the unconstitutional dues deductions.
Secret Union Dues Scheme Has Been Illegal for 45 Years
Marshall, Savas, and their fellow lifeguards are now petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their case, arguing CSLEA bosses’ restrictive arrangement even violates Supreme Court precedent that predates Janus.
The lifeguards’ Foundation provided attorneys argue in the petition that “maintenance of membership” requirements not only flout Janus’ ban on all forced dues in the public sector, but even violate the Supreme Court’s now-overturned 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood let union officials force dissenting public sector employees to pay a portion of union dues as a condition of employment.
“Maintenance of membership” requirements – which force public employees to pay full union dues often for years after they try to resign from the union – are worse than anything permitted by Abood, Foundation staff attorneys argue.
The petition also takes to task CSLEA union bosses’ paltry defense that the lifeguards somehow voluntarily agreed to the “maintenance of membership” scheme. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that union officials can only take dues from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee gives a “clear and compelling” waiver of Janus rights. Foundation attorneys point out that the CSLEA union’s dues deduction forms contained only a “vague reference” to an unexplained limit on when withdrawal from membership is permitted, which is not even close to satisfying Janus’ waiver requirement.
“A vague reference to unspecified limitations in ‘the Unit 7 contract and State law’ does not establish the Lifeguards contractually consented” to union membership for four years, the petition says.
Supreme Court Must Intervene to Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Restrictions
The petition for Savas and his fellow lifeguards emphasizes how crucial it is for the Supreme Court to strike down cumbersome “maintenance of membership” restrictions, pointing out that California unions and legislators will continue to force public employees to remain formal union members and pay full dues as a condition of employment if the schemes are left unchecked.
“Other states likely will follow suit, such as Pennsylvania, whose laws also authorize maintenance of membership requirements,” the brief states.
Challenged Scheme Gives Union Bosses Control of Workers’ Janus Rights
“‘Maintenance of membership’ restrictions give union officials complete control over when public employees can exercise their rights to end union membership and cut off union dues deductions,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse.
“The Supreme Court must intervene in these lifeguards’ case to protect the First Amendment rights of all American public sector employees, and prevent union bosses and their political allies from replicating across the country these patently unconstitutional restrictions.
NYC University Professors Take Aim at Forced Union ‘Representation’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CUNY professors’ lawsuit argues NY law forces them under power of anti-Semitic union
Prof. Avraham Goldstein recalled in a Wall Street Journal piece the anti-Semitism his family faced in the Soviet Union. He and other plaintiffs argue they shouldn’t be forced to associate with a union that subjects them to similar hostility.
NEW YORK, NY – For decades, government sector union bosses have relied on two pillars of coercion — forced dues and forced representation — to maintain their grip on power over America’s public servants and the public services citizens rely on.
While the Supreme Court in the 2018 National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case recognized that forcing government employees to pay dues to stay employed violates the First Amendment, a new Foundation-assisted civil rights lawsuit from six City University of New York (CUNY) system professors may finally defeat union bosses’ privilege to impose union representation over the objections of public workers.
CUNY professors Jeffrey Lax, Michael Goldstein, Avraham Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, and Maria Pagano sued the AFL-CIO-affiliated Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY executives, and New York State officials in January, challenging New York State’s “Taylor Law” that gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in public sector workplaces like CUNY.
The plaintiffs, most of whom are Jewish, oppose the union’s “representation” on the grounds that union officials and adherents have relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity. Several of the plaintiffs exercised their Janus right to cut off dues after PSC officials rammed through a resolution in June 2021 that they found “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” according to the lawsuit.
Discrimination Cited in Groundbreaking First Amendment Case
The lawsuit, which was filed with legal aid from both the National Right to Work Foundation and Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, says: “Despite Plaintiffs’ resignations from membership in PSC, Defendants . . . acting in concert and under color of state law, force all Plaintiffs to continue to utilize PSC as their exclusive bargaining representative.”
The resolution is not nearly the worst example of PSC officials’ anti-Semitism, according to the lawsuit. Prof. Michael Goldstein asserts that adherents of PSC are waging a campaign to get him fired and have targeted him with harassment and threats such that he must have an armed guard accompany him on campus. Prof. Lax cites in the lawsuit a determination he has already received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that “PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.”
While all of the professors take issue with PSC bosses’ radicalism, they also want to break free from internal conflicts within the large and disparate unit, which consists of full-time, part-time, and adjunct teaching employees and others. Prof. Kass-Shraibman states in the lawsuit that “instead of prioritizing the pay of full-time faculty, PSC expended resources advocating on behalf of teachers in Peru, graduate students at various other universities and the so-called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement.”
On top of all that, Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert contend that PSC officials aren’t even respecting their First Amendment Janus rights. Although all three professors clearly indicated they wanted to cut off financial support to the union, the lawsuit explains that “Defendants PSC and the City . . . have taken and continue to take and/or have accepted and continue to accept union dues from [their] wages as a condition of employment . . .” in violation of Janus.
“I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity,” Prof. Avraham Goldstein wrote in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. “I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good.”
“I was wrong,” recounted Prof. Goldstein. “Union officials refused my resignation and continued taking union dues out of my paycheck.”
Suit Seeks Damages and to Overturn NY Law Authorizing Union Control
The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Taylor Law’s imposition of monopoly union control is unconstitutional, and that the defendants cease “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent.” The lawsuit also demands the union and university return dues seized in violation of Janus to Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert.
“By forcing these professors into a monopoly union collective against their will, the state of New York mandates that they associate with union officials and other union members who take positions that are deeply offensive to these professors’ most fundamental beliefs,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such unconscionable compulsion. It is time federal courts fully protect the rights of government employees to exercise their freedom to disassociate from an unwanted union, whether their objections are religious, cultural, financial, or otherwise.”
Full Foundation Action July/August 2022 Newsletter Now Online
All articles from the July/August issue of Foundation Action are now on the website.
In this issue:
- South Jersey Bus Drivers Challenge Dues Trap Scheme in New Janus Lawsuit
- Slot Machine Technicians Appeal Outrageous Decision Denying Decertification Vote
- Worker Wins $18,000+ for Illegal Firing at IAM Union Bosses’ Behest
- Mark Mix in The Wall Street Journal: Jennifer Abruzzo’s Plan to Abolish Union Elections
- Flight Attendant Battling Religious Discrimination Beats Union Attempt to End Case
- Forced Dues For Politics: CWA Union Hit with Federal Charge by Pennsylvania Metal Worker
Recent articles can be found here. To sign up for a free copy of the newsletter via mail please see the form at the bottom of this page.
Las Vegas Police Officer Urges Supreme Court to Hear Case Battling Union’s Unconstitutional Dues Scheme
LVMPD officer argues union officials seized her money in violation of First Amendment through restrictive arrangement to which she never consented
Washington, DC (November 21, 2022) – Las Vegas police officer Melodie DePierro has submitted a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit defending her First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to a union she does not support. DePierro is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
DePierro, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officer, contends in the lawsuit that officials of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) union seized dues money from her paycheck in violation of her First Amendment rights pursuant to a so-called “window period” specified in the union contract. PPA officials’ “window period” scheme prohibits police officers from opting out of union financial support for over 90% of the year. DePierro never consented to – nor was ever informed of – this limitation.
DePierro seeks to enforce her First Amendment rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME case, which was argued and won by Foundation attorneys. The Justices ruled in Janus that forcing public sector workers to subsidize an unwanted union as a condition of employment violates the First Amendment. They also held that union officials can only deduct dues from a public sector employee who has affirmatively waived his or her Janus rights.
“[I]f employee consent is not required, governments and unions can, and will…devise and enforce onerous restrictions on when employees can stop subsidizing union speech,” reads the brief.
PPA Union Officials Imposed on Officer Contract Provision She Never Knew About
According to DePierro’s original complaint, she began working for LVMPD in 2006 and voluntarily joined the PPA union at that time. However, in 2006 the union monopoly bargaining contract permitted employees to terminate dues deductions at any time.
In January 2020, she first tried to exercise her Janus rights, sending letters to both union officials and the LVMPD stating that she was resigning her membership. The letters demanded a stop to union dues being taken from her paycheck.
Her complaint reported that union and police department agents rejected that request because of the union-imposed “window period” restriction previously unknown to DePierro that purportedly limits when employees can exercise their Janus rights. As her brief notes, that “window period” restriction was added in the 2019 monopoly bargaining contract between union officials and the police department, despite the fact Janus had already been decided by then.
DePierro never agreed to such a restriction on the exercise of her First Amendment rights, but union agents nonetheless rebuffed her again when she renewed her demand to stop dues deductions in February 2020. When she filed her lawsuit, full union dues were still coming out of her paycheck.
DePierro’s Supreme Court petition argues that, because union officials kept seizing money from her wages under the guise of the “window period,” and never sought her consent to the restriction, they violated the First Amendment. As per Janus, union officials must obtain a worker’s waiver of their Janus rights before deducting dues or fees from their pay. DePierro asks the High Court to declare the “window period” scheme unconstitutional, forbid PPA and LVMPD from further enforcing it, and order PPA and LVMPD to refund with interest all dues unlawfully withheld from her pay since she tried to stop the deductions.
“This Court’s review is urgently needed because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is allowing governments and unions to unilaterally decide when and how to restrict employees’ right to refrain from subsidizing union speech—without the need to secure their affirmative consent to the restriction,” asserts the brief.
Officer Joins California Lifeguards in Asking Justices to Uphold Janus Ruling
DePierro’s petition comes as 21 Foundation-represented Southern California lifeguards are also urging the Supreme Court to hear their case challenging an anti-Janus dues scheme concocted by California Statewide Law Enforcement Agency (CSLEA) union officials. That scheme has trapped the lifeguards in union membership and full dues deductions until 2023, despite each of the lifeguards exercising his or her Janus right to abstain from union membership and union financial support.
As in DePierro’s case, the lifeguards were not explicitly informed of the so-called “maintenance of membership” restriction which now confines them in membership and full dues payment. Moreover, union officials never obtained voluntary waivers of Janus rights from any of the lifeguards before subjecting them to this scheme.
“Janus’ First Amendment protections are meant to ensure that workers are not being forced to subsidize union bosses of whom they disapprove, whether based on union officials’ ineffectiveness, political activities, divisive conduct in the workplace, or any other reason,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials’ defense of schemes that siphon money out of unwilling workers’ paychecks sends a clear message that they value dues revenue over the constitutional rights of the workers they claim to ‘represent.’”
“Two parties, here the union and police department, cannot enter into an agreement to restrict the First Amendment rights of an American citizen, yet that is exactly what has happened here to Officer DePierro,” Mix added. “The Supreme Court must defend Janus rights against such obvious violations, and ensure that these unconstitutional schemes are not allowed to stand.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for Minnesota Nurses Impacted by MNA Strike Threat
Strike would affect up to 15,000 nurses in the Twin Cities and Twin Ports, but healthcare workers have right to rebuff union boss strike demand
Twin Cities, MN (September 8, 2022) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation issued a special legal notice for nurses potentially affected by a strike being threatened by Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) union officials at 15 hospital locations in the Twin Cities, Duluth, and Superior Wisconsin. The strike is reportedly scheduled to start September 12, 2022.
Because of the MNA unions’ monopoly power, the strike scheduled by MNA will affect up to 15,000 nurses, impacting the care of countless patients. The Foundation’s legal notice informs nurses of the rights union officials often conceal, including that the nurses have the right not to abandon their patients but instead to continue providing medical care while also working to support their families.
Importantly, the notice gives workers who want to exercise their right to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that would likely be imposed by union officials.
“While a strike vote does not mean a strike is imminent, the situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “If a strike occurs, employees have the right under federal labor law to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for you to get informed before you do so.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ rights to resign union membership and to revoke their union dues check-offs. In just the past few months National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted hundreds of Minnesota nurses, many in decertification votes to remove unwanted union “representation.”
Recently, Foundation staff attorneys assisted hundreds of nurses at the Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota. There, nurses voted to remove Minnesota Nurses Association union officials. Union officials attempted to overturn the vote, but failed after Foundation staff attorneys defended the outcome for the nurses before the National Labor Relations Board.
Currently, staff attorneys represent nurses at Mayo Clinic Lake City in Minnesota who seek a vote to free themselves from MNA. Additionally, Foundation staff attorneys are also assisting nurses at four Cuyuna Regional Medical Center locations in exercising their right to obtain a vote to free themselves of unwanted union so-called “representation.”
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization, exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employee victims of forced unionism abuse. The full special notice for the nurses can be found at https://807063.us25.myftpupload.com/mnastrike2022/
“For decades, the Foundation has provided free legal aid to workers to protect them from Big Labor’s coercive tactics, which are especially common during union boss-instigated strikes,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “Nurses always have the right to continue to work during a strike, despite what union officials may tell them or try to pressure them into doing.”
“However, for nurses who choose not to abandon their patients, there are important steps they should take to protect themselves from vindictive union retaliation,” added Mix.
Workers Slam Grocery Union Officials with Federal Charges for Illegal Fines Topping $3,000 for Working during UFCW Strike
Charges: Workers weren’t formal union members and exercised legal right to work but were still subjected to excessive, punitive fines
Denver, Colorado (June 20, 2022) – Today, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed charges against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union for illegally levying fines against King Soopers grocery chain workers who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. Charges against the union were filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The unlawful fines issued by union bosses against the workers are more per day than the workers earned in a day of work, totaling more than $3,000 throughout the 10 day strike.
UFCW officials demanded that workers strike against King Soopers grocery stores for more than a week in January 2022, impacting more than 8,000 employees. In response, Foundation staff attorneys issued a legal notice informing the affected workers of their rights that union officials often hide, including that the workers have the right to continue to work to support their families.
“The situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and other oppressive union discipline for continuing to report to work.”
During past UFCW-instigated strikes workers faced similar unlawful fines, which union officials claim can only be disputed at internal union kangaroo courts. However, with free legal aid from the Foundation, workers have successfully challenged such fines on the grounds that union bosses have no authority to levy such fines against workers who are not fully voluntary union members.
As today’s charges note, that is the case for King Soopers grocery workers Nick Hall and Marcelo Ruybal, whom union bosses are threatening to fine $812 and $3,800 respectively despite them not being voluntary union members. According to one news report, UFCW Local 7 union officials threatened workers who exercised their right to work during the strike that they “shall be subject to a fine of $250 per day of the violation, as well as all monies earned by you from King Soopers during said dates of these violations.”
In a similar case for two Stop & Shop grocery workers in New England, Foundation staff attorneys won a settlement earlier against UFCW officials for issuing illegal fines for working during an April 2019 strike. That settlement required UFCW union officials to post remedial rights notices in over 70 Stop & Shop stores and return dues seized from the two workers in violation of their rights.
“Once again union bosses have been caught red-handed retaliating against rank-and-file workers who exercised their rights to work despite the UFCW’s strike demands,’” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “No worker should have to pick between feeding their family and toeing the union line, and we’re proud to assist these workers in standing up to union bullies.”
“Other King Soopers workers facing similar fines should know they can reach out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal assistance in challenging such excessive, retaliatory fines,” added Mix.
