Posts tagged amicus brief
Buffalo Starbucks Baristas Blast National Labor Relations Board’s Move to Trap Workers in Union at Court of Appeals
November 29, 2023 // “Given the biases of the current Board, it is disheartening ― but not surprising ― to see the NLRB claim Cortes’ petition is the product of Starbucks’ alleged unfair labor practices,” the brief states. “Its own records show that nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, Cortes collected her petition because of the Union’s anti-employee behavior.” The employees’ brief also contends that the relief NLRB lawyers are seeking from the Second Circuit – a 10(j) injunction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that will force Starbucks managers into working with SBWU union bosses to craft a monopoly bargaining contract – is extreme. Such injunctions can only be ordered when the harm done to workers in their absence would be “irreparable.” Foundation attorneys argue that the fact that Cortes and other employees have attempted to decertify does not make any injuries suffered by the union “irreparable.” “The NLRB’s argument it needs an injunction to suppress decertification efforts already underway―which have already garnered majority support―is a tacit admission it is seeking to alter the status quo, not preserve it,” states the brief.
National Right to Work Foundation Urges SCOTUS to Reverse NLRB Decision Letting ILA Union Wipe Out Nonunion Port Jobs
October 29, 2023 // The brief spells out the dire consequences of the ILA union’s maneuver for Leatherman’s 270 state employees, who are protected by state law from monopoly union control. It explains that South Carolina spent over $1 billion to develop the terminal, but the ILA union’s scheme, if allowed to continue, would require South Carolina to both fire all the nonunion state employees of the port, and turn control of crane jobs over to a private contractor with an ILA union contract. The devastating effects for current employees wouldn’t stop there if the ILA is victorious in the case. The brief points out that, even if fired state workers were to seek new employment at Leatherman with a private contractor under the union’s control, the ILA would likely prioritize its existing workers far above the former state workers because of union seniority provisions and hiring hall referral rules.
Liberty Justice Center Defends Janus Rights in Alaska
October 6, 2023 // In the years since the Supreme Court issued its ruling, multiple states have passed laws to make it more difficult for employees to know and exercise their rights under Janus. In addition, multiple lower courts have refused to enforce the “affirmative consent” requirements set forth by the Supreme Court when employees have sought to enforce their Janusrights by alleging that they did not consent to pay unions freely or knowingly. “Unions have convinced states, government employers, and the lower courts to ignore one of the most important parts of the Janus decision,” said Liberty Justice Center Senior Counsel Jeffrey Schwab. “The Supreme Court must intervene and make clear that it meant what it said in Janus—workers must be fully informed of their rights before the union can claim any of their paycheck.” In their amicus brief, Mark Janus, the Liberty Justice Center, and the Illinois Policy Institute urge the Supreme Court to hear Alaska v. Alaska Employees Association and affirm that the Court’s ruling in Janus means that money cannot be withheld from employees on behalf of unions unless and until the government has clear evidence of the employees’ free and knowing consent.
BOARD DEFIES FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN DECISION THAT THREATENS FREELANCERS, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ACROSS NATION
June 15, 2023 // “In today’s decision, the Board reinstates a test for determining employment status that was explicitly rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The Board’s decision will force workers into work arrangements they do not want – all for the sake of giving unions new potential members. With this decision, the Board has chosen to ignore the concerns raised by the employer and freelance communities, and its actions threaten to destabilize a number of industries and deprive many independent contractors of the flexible work methods and entrepreneurial opportunities they value. “The Board’s actions are all part of the Biden administration’s war against small businesses and entrepreneurs and will invite confusion and litigation. As we explained in our amicus brief, the NLRB should continue to follow the standard set in SuperShuttle DFW and emphasize the significance of entrepreneurial opportunity when considering a worker’s proper classification.”
OREGON LEGISLATIVE STAFF OPPOSED TO FORCED UNIONIZATION GET THEIR DAY IN COURT
June 6, 2023 // “We have an executive agency, the Employment Relations Board, interfering in the business of the legislative branch of government by making itself the authority on the wages, hours and working conditions of legislative assistants,” said Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Schultheiss. “By placing all Legislative Assistants — regardless of political party — into the same bargaining unit, ERB has destroyed the essential trust between Legislators and their Assistants.” Earlier on in the litigation, twenty-eight Oregon Lawmakers and staffers additionally filed an amicus brief supporting the Freedom Foundation’s efforts to get the Employment Relations Board ruling overturned, claiming that the certification of a political union as representative of legislative assistants “will have a paralyzing effect on Legislators.”
Michigan: Unions Can’t Discriminate Against Non-Members
April 27, 2023 // Unions must not be allowed to charge non-members exorbitant fees for the right to voice complaints to their employer, according to an amicus brief filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy to the Michigan Supreme Court. The brief was filed in the case Technical Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan v. Renner. Unions have monopoly power over employment rules and conditions, including how grievances must be addressed. In this case, the union refused to represent Daniel Lee Renner in a dispute with his employer unless he paid $1,290 just to start the grievance process. The collective bargaining agreement negotiated by TPOAM prohibits individual employees like Renner from filing grievances on their own behalf. This forces those employees to obtain union representation if they wish to have their voices heard. “This policy is meant to strongarm public employees who have made it clear that they do not want to associate with a union,” said Patrick J. Wright
Foundation Brief to Court of Appeals: Lower Court’s Decision Conflicts with SCOTUS’ Janus Ruling
April 7, 2023 // The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5. The brief was filed in Littler v. OAPSE, brought by plaintiff Christina Littler. She attempted exercise her right to withdraw union membership and financial support, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, only to be denied by union officials. In the Foundation-won and argued Janus case, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment protects government employees, like Littler, from being forced to fund union activities, and further that dues may only be deducted with the affirmative consent of an employee. Littler is a school bus driver who, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Janus, notified the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE) that she resigned her union membership and revoked her dues deduction authorization. Rather than honor Littler’s timely request to stop paying union dues, union officials had her government employer continue to seize full dues from her paycheck. This prompted Littler to file a lawsuit to recover the dues OAPSE seized from her in violation of her First Amendment rights.
The Michigan Education Association Improperly Took COVID-19 Relief Funds
March 6, 2023 // “The Michigan Education Association applied for money intended for struggling businesses during the height of the pandemic,” said Joseph G. Lehman, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “The union and MESSA obtained some of the largest PPP loans in the country. They took these funds, for which they were clearly ineligible, while shuttered restaurants, stores, other businesses and their workers struggled to stay afloat.” Private businesses and some nonprofits were eligible for the loans, but 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(9) organizations, like the MEA and MESSA, were clearly prohibited from receiving PPP funds. The Mackinac Center was eligible as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but did not apply for assistance. In April 2020, the MEA and MESSA both applied for PPP funding. The MEA received $6.4 million while MESSA received a $6.1 million loan. Officials of both organizations certified that they had read the eligibility requirements of the program and asserted they were eligible for the loans. Money from the program ran out within weeks. While the union and MESSA eventually returned the improper funds in December 2020, taking them in the first place denied eligible businesses from receiving them.
EXCLUSIVE: US Postal Service is accused of sharing private information from 68 million households that applied for free Covid-19 tests with labor unions that could potentially be used for their political campaigns
February 10, 2023 // AFFT CEO Elisabeth Messenger said she fears that if passed to unions by USPS, the data could be used for political campaigning. 'We're talking over 70 million households by now. That's more than half the households in the United States,' she told DailyMail.com.
Supreme Court to Ponder Union Rights for National Guard Techs
January 10, 2023 // The US Supreme Court will hear oral argument over whether to strip federal-sector labor law rights from the National Guard’s dual-status technicians, a unique type of federal employee who works for state militias. The justices on Monday will review a federal appeals court decision blessing the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s jurisdiction over a dispute stemming from the Ohio National Guard’s attempt to oust an American Federation of Government Employees affiliate that represents Guard technicians. The high court is hearing Ohio’s bid to evade federal oversight—an obstacle to ejecting the AFGE affiliate—despite agreement among all six federal appeals courts that have ruled on the issue.