FoundationActionFoundationAction

3

4

5

6

7

IN THIS ISSUE

Vol. XXXIV, No. 1 8001 Braddock Road • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org January/February 2014

The bi-monthly newsletterof the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

WASHINGTON, DC – This October,the United States Supreme Courtannounced that it would hear argu-ments in Harris v. Quinn, a case thatchallenges the forced unionization ofpersonal homecare providers in Illinois.Following the National Right to WorkFoundation’s landmark Supreme Courtvictory in Knox vs. SEIU and oral argu-ments in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE,Harris will be the seventeenth caseFoundation attorneys have arguedbefore the Supreme Court.

The Harris case challenges a schemepioneered by disgraced former IllinoisGovernor Rod Blagojevich and expand-ed by his successor, Governor PatQuinn. Under executive orders signedby both governors, personal homecareworkers were designated as “publicemployees” for the purpose of unionorganizing, a move that has since forcedthousands of unwilling care providersinto the SEIU’s forced dues-payingranks.

Thousands of home care workers arealready forced to pay union dues to theService Employees International Union(SEIU). Meanwhile, SEIU andAmerican Federation of State, County,and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)union bosses are now competing toacquire monopoly bargaining controlover thousands more Illinois homecareproviders.

With the help of Foundation staffattorneys, Pam Harris and seven otherIllinois homecare providers – several of

whom have already been unionized –are challenging the Governors’ execu-tive orders on the grounds that forcingthem to affiliate with a union and subsi-dize union activities violates their rightsto free expression and association.

Case could set broadprecedent against forcedunionism

“I have been motivated not only outof [the] need to protect my family but byother families similarly situated,”explained Pam Harris, lead plaintiff inthe case.

“I am doing what needs to be done toprotect the support our significantly dis-abled sons and daughters need to live athome surrounded by their family.”

Supreme Court DismissesUnion Effort to OverturnOrganizing Precedent

Labor Bosses FaceFoundation Charges forViolating Michigan Right toWork Laws

Foundation CampaignEducates Illinois TeachersAbout Workplace Rights

See FOUNDATION SUPREME COURT CASE page 2

According to Right to Work staffattorneys, the Harris case is an opportu-nity to build on earlier Foundation-won

Foundation-AssistedWisconsin Civil Servants Fightfor Act 10 ProtectionsFormer Nurse Files Brief inNLRB “Recess Appointment”Supreme Court Case

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Homecare Unionization SchemeLatest Foundation case has the potential to end forced dues for all government employees

Pam Harris’s fight to care for her developmentally-disabled son without union-boss interference has finally reached the Supreme Court.

2 Foundation Action January/February 2014

Rev. Fred Fowler Chairman, Board of TrusteesPatrick Semmens Vice President and Editor-in-ChiefRay LaJeunesse, Jr. Vice President and Legal DirectorMark Mix President

The Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employeeswhose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism. All contributions

to the Foundation are tax deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Distributed by theNational Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160www.nrtw.org • 1-800-336-3600

Foundation Action

precedents to limit union officals’ spe-cial privileges.

If the Supreme Court rules thatBlagojevich’s homecare forced unioniza-tion scheme violates Illinois homecareproviders’ First Amendment rights,Foundation attorneys could seize onthat precedent to challenge similarorganizing schemes in over a dozenstates, including Rhode Island andMinnesota.

“Workers in many industries thathave traditionally had a strong unionpresence have been turned off by BigLabor’s political activism and counter-productive organizing tactics,” saidMark Mix, President of the NationalRight to Work Foundation. “That’s whyunion organizers have turned to politi-cal schemes like Illinois homecareunionization.”

“Union bosses want more forceddues, but they can’t rely on voluntaryemployee support, so they’ve used exec-utive and legislative power grabs to forcehomecare providers into union ranks.”

Right to Work attorneys are also ask-ing the Court to expand on the ruling it

issued last summer in the Foundation’slandmark Knox v. SEIU victory. In Knox,Justice Alito’s majority opinion hintedthat the Court might be willing to repealunion bosses’ forced dues powers overpublic sector workers. With Harris, the

nine justices may reconsider whetherunion officials should have any power toextract forced dues from public employ-ees.

“The Harris case could do more thanstem the tide of homecare unionizationschemes in places like Minnesota,Illinois, and Rhode Island,” said Mix. “Infact, Harris has the potential to elimi-nate union bosses’ forced dues powersin the public sector for good.”

Illinois homecare providersstill stuck in legal limbo

Unfortunately, Pam Harris and thou-sands of other Illinois homecareproviders – many of whom have alreadybeen forced into union ranks – remainin legal limbo until the Supreme Courtissues a final ruling. Meanwhile, aggres-sive union organizers are moving for-ward with similar homecare organizingcampaigns in Minnesota and RhodeIsland.

Harris hopes that her stand willencourage other parents and homecareproviders facing aggressive unionorganizing campaigns to stand up fortheir rights.

“I am simply a mom who lives innorthern Illinois who connected withothers in the same situation,” saidHarris. “I firmly believe that every fam-ily, given accurate and complete infor-mation, will make the right choice. It'sdaunting to publicly oppose unioniza-tion. But if it's the right thing for you -don't be afraid.”

“We hope the Supreme Court willtake this opportunity to strike a decisiveblow against forced unionism in thepublic sector,” continued Mix. “Nohomecare provider or civil servantshould be forced to pay union dues,which is why the outcome of the Harriscase is so vital.”

Foundation Supreme Court Case Takes on Homecare Forced Unionizationcontinued from page 1

Disgraced former Illinois GovernorRod Blagojevich pioneered thehomecare forced unionizationscheme Foundation attorneys arechallenging at the Supreme Court.

In all three cases, the public-sectorworkers informed union officials thatthey were exercising their right underMichigan’s Right to Work law to refrainfrom union membership and dues pay-ments after the union’s monopoly bar-gaining agreement with their employersexpired. Instead of complying with theworkers’ requests, union officials toldthe workers that they would have to waitfor union-designated “window periods”forcing the school workers to remainunion members and pay union dues foralmost an additional year.

Teamster Local 214 union officialstold one school employee that she wouldhave to wait until July 2014 before shecould exercise her right to refrain fromunion membership and dues payments.Michigan Education Association (MEA)union officials told the other workersthat they would have to wait for a brief,union-designated “window period” inAugust before they could resign unionmembership and refrain from payingunion dues.

The workers’ charges point out thatMichigan’s Right to Work law protectstheir unequivocal right to refrain fromunion membership and dues paymentsat any time.

The MERC has thus far scheduledhearings in at least two of the public-workers’ cases. The outcomes of thesecases could very well determine howstrictly Michigan’s Right to Work law isenforced.

“Union officials are trying to keepworkers from exercising their rightsunder Michigan’s Right to Work laws,”said Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President ofthe National Right to Work Foundation.“The MERC needs to declare thatunscrupulous union officials’ efforts toundermine workers’ rights enshrined inMichigan’s new Right to Work law willnot be tolerated.”

January/February 2014 Foundation Action 3

DETROIT, MI – With free legal assis-tance from National Right to WorkFoundation staff attorneys, severalMichigan workers have challengedunion bosses’ attempts to prevent themfrom exercising their rights underMichigan’s recently-enacted Right toWork laws.

Under Michigan's Right to Work law,contracts entered into after the law wentinto effect in March 2013 must respectworkers' rights to refrain from member-ship in the union and the payment ofany union dues or fees.

However, in cases across the state,union officials are attempting to forceworkers to abide by union bylaws and“window periods” in order stifle work-ers seeking to resign union membershipand/or refrain from union dues pay-ments.

UPS worker filesfederal charge

In late September, a Wyoming,Michigan UPS employee became thefirst worker to file a legal challengeagainst union officials for violating thenew private-sector Right to Work law.

Gary Frost, who is not a member ofthe Teamster Local 406 union, had topay union fees as a condition of hisemployment before Michigan enactedRight to Work laws making union pay-ments completely voluntary. OnceMichigan’s Right to Work laws went intoeffect, Frost, out of an abundance ofcaution, attempted to comply with Local406’s procedure to end forced dues pay-ments by revoking his dues deductionauthorization – a document union offi-cials use to take dues or fees from work-ers’ paychecks.

Instead of complying with Frost’srequest, Local 406 union officials toldhim that he would have to wait for a

union-designated “window period”before he could revoke his dues deduc-tion and opt out of union fees. Unionofficials have also refused to provideFrost with a copy of his dues deductionauthorization and have not told him ofthe dates of the so-called “window peri-od” for revocation.

With the help of Foundation attor-neys, Frost filed a federal charge withthe National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) against the Teamster local forviolating his rights.

Three school workers filestate charges

In the following weeks, NationalRight to Work Foundation staff attor-neys helped three Michigan publicschool employees file state charges withthe Michigan Employment RelationsCommission (MERC) in Detroit. Theemployees’ charges seek enforcement ofMichigan’s public-sector Right to Worklaw.

Unscrupulous union bosses areattempting to bypass Michigan’snewly-enacted Right to Work law.

Labor Bosses Face Foundation Charges for Violating Michigan Right to Work LawsUnion officials stonewall workers’ attempts to resign from union, stop paying full dues

4 Foundation Action January/February 2014

organizing assistance could constitute “athing of value.” UNITE HERE lawyersquickly appealed the decision to theSupreme Court, prompting Foundationattorneys to file a cross-petition askingthe Court to review certain aspects ofthe Eleventh Circuit’s ruling.

Backroom organizing dealsundermine workers’ rights

Without prohibitions on employershanding over things of value to unionorganizers – including workers’ person-al information – unscrupulous employ-ers and aggressive union organizers willcontinue to agree to backroom dealsthat undermine worker rights.

Even some of the Court’s more liber-al justices expressed skepticism aboutthe legality of the union’s organizingpact during oral arguments.

WASHINGTON, DC – In December,the United States Supreme Court "dis-missed as improvidently granted" aunion appeal of the Eleventh CircuitCourt of Appeals’ ruling in Mulhall v.UNITE HERE. Although the Courtheard oral arguments from both theunion and Foundation staff attorneys, itdeclined to issue a ruling.

By allowing the Eleventh Circuit rul-ing to stand, the Supreme Court left inplace an important check on aggressiveunion organizing pacts that undermineworkers’ rights.

Mulhall v. UNITE HERE marks thesixteenth time Foundation attorneyshave argued before the highest court inthe land. Martin Mulhall, the lead plain-tiff, has received free legal assistancefrom the National Right to WorkFoundation since 2008.

According to Harvard Law ProfessorJack Goldsmith, “. . . [A]s long as [the]decision stands, the specter of expensiveand difficult litigation will hover overneutrality/bargaining agreements inmany circuits, and will indeed chill themaking of those agreements.”

Shady organizing pactsparks legal action

In 2004, UNITE HERE Local 355 andMulhall’s employer, Mardi GrasGaming, agreed to a backroom organiz-ing deal. Under the terms of the agree-ment, union officials spent over$100,000 to pass a gambling ballot ini-tiative and guaranteed not to picket,boycott, or strike against Mardi Grasfacilities.

In return, Mardi Gras agreed to giveunion operatives employees’ personalcontact information (including homeaddresses), grant access to companyfacilities during a coercive “card check”organizing campaign, refrain from

informing workers about the downsidesof unionization, and refrain fromrequesting a federally-supervised secretballot election to determine whetheremployees unionized.

With the help of Foundation staffattorneys, Mulhall filed a lawsuit chal-lenging this organizing pact in 2008.Under the Labor Management RelationsAct, employers are prohibited fromhanding over “any money or other thingof value” to union organizers, a provi-sion that is supposed to prevent unionofficials from selling out workers’ rightsin exchange for corporate concessions.Mulhall argued that the company’s con-cessions were of substantial monetaryvalue because they made UNITEHERE’s organizing drive easier and lessexpensive.

Mulhall won a significant victory lastspring, when the Eleventh Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled that the company’s

Martin Mulhall (left) and Bill Messenger, a Foundation staff attorney, addressthe media at the Supreme Court. The precedent Mulhall won at the EleventhCircuit provides an important check on backroom union card check deals.

Supreme Court Dismisses Union Effort to Overturn Organizing PrecedentRight to Work-won Appeals Court ruling stands, limiting backroom union card check deals

January/February 2014 Foundation Action 5

Although the Supreme Courtdeclined to issue a broader ruling, theEleventh Circuit’s Mulhall decisionestablished an important limit on back-room organizing deals between unionoperatives and employers.

“We’re happy to report that theEleventh Circuit's ruling will stand, lim-iting the potential for backroom dealsbetween union organizers and companyofficials,” said Mark Mix, President ofthe National Right to Work Foundation.“Management shouldn’t be allowed toturn over employees’ personal informa-tion to Big Labor organizers, which iswhy the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent is avital protection for workers.”

“Union bosses and employers whouse workers’ rights as a bargaining chipwill now enter into these so-called neu-trality organizing agreements at theirown risk.”

“That [$]100,000 is troubling to mebecause I think what the circuit was say-ing is if the [$]100,000 bought thepeaceful recognition provisions, thenthat’s corrupt, and that is outside theexemptions that the law provides,” saidJustice Sotomayor.

“Tell me why I’m wrong about thatand tell me how I deal with that nigglingproblem I have about the $100,000,because it does feel like a bribe to theemployer,” she continued.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Robertszeroed in on the union’s use of a cardcheck drive to organize Mardi Grasworkers.

A card check deal between anemployer and a union “taints thatprocess,” said Roberts, “in particular byallowing the card check procedure thatit has been argued exercised coercionagainst employees to support the union.”

Card check drives are often agreed toas part of the backroom union organiz-ing deals Mulhall challenged. Inexchange for union concessions overpay scales and working conditions,many companies will allow unionorganizers to conduct a coercive cardcheck organizing campaign. Someemployers will even hand over employ-ees’ home addresses and personal con-tact information to union operatives.

Armed with employees’ addressesand phone numbers, union organizersbrowbeat, harass, and intimidate work-ers into signing cards that are thencounted as “votes” for unionization.Once the cards are tallied, union offi-cials are able to collect forced dues fromthe workers in non-Right to Work stateswhile employers get to deal with a pliantunion whenever disputes about wagesor working conditions arise.

Foundation Campaign Educates Illinois Teachers about Workplace RightsTeacher refund project aims to break the union boss stranglehold on Illinois public schoolsSPRINGFIELD, VA – In November, theNational Right to Work Foundationofficially launched a multimedia cam-paign to educate Illinois teachers abouttheir workplace rights. The campaign isaimed at informing public school teach-ers that they can resign from a unionand opt out of dues spent on union pol-itics at any time.

“Although teachers have the right torefrain from union membership and thepayment of dues for things like unionpolitics, many educators remainunaware of these rights,” said PatrickSemmens, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“We hope to remedy that problem byreaching out to Illinois teachers.”

The teacher refund project featuresan extensive radio campaign broadcast-ed throughout Illinois. The radio publicservice announcements inform teachersof their rights and direct them toteacherrefund.com, a Foundation site

that provides further information and astep-by-step guide to resigning from ateacher union and opting out of duesunrelated to workplace bargaining.

In Illinois and other states withoutRight toWork laws, employees – includ-ing public school teachers – can beforced to pay union dues just to keep ajob. However, workers still have theright to refrain from formal unionmembership and the payment of duesfor activities unrelated to workplace bar-gaining, such as union politicalactivism.

Unfortunately, many Illinois teachersare unaware of their workplace rights.

Union officials rarely advertise thatunion membership and the payment offull dues are optional, and in some cases,actively obstruct teachers who wish toleave a union.

However, the recent passage of Rightto Work laws in neighboring Michiganand Indiana and Wisconsin’s recentreform of its public-sector labor lawshave shined a spotlight on worker rightsin the Midwest. The Illinois teacherrefund campaign seeks to capitalize onthis momentum by encouraging Illinoisteachers to learn about and exercisetheir right to stop paying dues for thingslike union politics.

“Foundation attorneys are preparedto assist any Illinois teachers who wishto assert their workplace rights,” contin-ued Semmens. “However, teachers needto be made aware of those rights beforewe can help, which is why the NationalRight toWork Foundation launched thiseducational campaign.”

6 Foundation Action January/February 2014

a new monopoly bargaining agreementbetween the Kenosha Unified SchoolDistrict, the District’s Board ofEducation, and the Kenosha EducationAssociation union because it violatesseveral provisions of Wisconsin Act 10.

With free legal assistance from theNational Right to Work Legal DefenseFoundation and the Wisconsin Institutefor Law and Liberty, Kristi Lacroix andanother Kenosha teacher are challeng-ing a monopoly bargaining agreementthat forces teachers who refrain fromunion membership to pay dues as a con-dition of their employment using tax-payer funded payroll systems. The newmonopoly bargaining agreement alsonegotiates teachers’ pay, benefits, andworking conditions outside of the scopeallowed under Act 10.

Recertification electionsrestarted after ruling

After the Wisconsin Supreme Courtheard arguments on the appeal of Colas’ruling, the court issued a ruling vacatingColas’ order prohibiting the WERCfrom conducting recertification elec-tions.

Although Wisconsin civil servantsmay have to wait until June to receivethe Wisconsin Supreme Court’s finalruling on Act 10, they will at least beable to vote to determine whether unionofficials can continue to claim to repre-sent them in their respective work-places.

“Many independent-minded civilservants have no interest in associatingwith government sector unions and theydeserve to have their voices heard,” saidPatrick Semmens, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“Act 10 protects those workers’ right todo so and now Wisconsin civil servantswill be allowed to participate in the elec-tions that they were promised.”

WAUKESHA, WI – National Right toWork Foundation staff attorneys arepart of a statewide effort to helpWisconsin public servants and aWisconsin taxpayer defend GovernorScott Walker’s government-sectorunionism reforms, commonly known asAct 10.

In 2011,Walker pushed for passage ofAct 10 in a contentious legislative ses-sion that was highlighted by union mili-tants’ acrimonious protests, which led toviolence, arrests, and vandalism.

Among other measures, WisconsinAct 10 prevents government union offi-cials from forcing nonmember workersto pay any union dues or fees, restrictsunion monopoly bargaining, ends theuse of taxpayer-funded payroll systemsfor the collection of union dues, andguarantees that public workers can voteon their union representation yearly.

Union bosses attempted tohalt recertification votes

After losing the legislative fight,union bosses immediately challengedAct 10 in the courts. Although govern-ment union lawyers have lost all of theirchallenges to Act 10 in the federalcourts, Dane County Circuit CourtJudge Juan Colas sided with unionlawyers and struck down the law(Significantly, another Dane CountyCircuit Judge later upheld the law). Thestate court of appeals did not rule onColas’ decision because of its limitedeffect, and certified the state’s appeal tothe Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Despite the appeals court’s limitedinterpretation of Colas’ ruling, unionofficials seized on it to win an orderfrom Colas to prohibit the WisconsinEmployment Relations Commission(WERC) from conducting the statewidesecret-ballot recertification electionsguaranteed under Wisconsin Act 10.

Once the case reached the WisconsinSupreme Court, five Wisconsin publicschool teachers from across the statefiled court briefs with the help of attor-neys from the National Right to WorkFoundation and the Wisconsin Institutefor Law and Liberty, asking the court tooverturn Colas’ ruling and allow therecertification elections to proceed.

Additional lawsuits seek touphold Act 10 provisions

The same five Wisconsin publicschool teachers also filed a lawsuit in theWaukesha County Circuit Court againstthe WERC for refusing to allow thesecret-ballot recertification elections.

Alternatively, the teachers asked that,if the court does not declare that WERCmust hold the recertification elections,then the teachers should be grantedtheir right to represent themselves indi-vidually regarding the terms and condi-tions of their employment.

Meanwhile, a Kenosha public schoolteacher and a Kenosha taxpayer alsofiled a lawsuit in state court challenging

Foundation-Assisted Wisconsin Civil Servants Fight for Act 10 ProtectionsTeachers stop union officials from bypassing recertification elections guaranteed under law

Former Kenosha teacher KristiLacroix is challenging a new unionbargaining agreement that forcesteachers to pay union dues.

January/February 2014 Foundation Action 7

Make a Planned Gift Now:Invest in the Future of Right to WorkAs we look ahead to more economicuncertainty and tax policy changes in2014, we are reminded that many of ourNational Right to Work Foundationdonors are considering tax-savingoptions for the future.

Reviewing your estate plans at this timeis crucial for economic security for youand your loved ones. There remain,however, many options available for youto take advantage of making a charita-ble gift now – or in the future – to assistthe work of the Foundation.

Gifts of cash are the most commonmethod of making a charitable gift to theFoundation. Gifts of cash can reduceeither regular or alternative minimumincome taxes. Your savings depend onyour tax rate and other factors.

A gift of stocks, mutual funds, or othersecurities that have increased in valuesince they were purchased is anotherway to make a charitable gift to theFoundation today. Appreciated securi-ties are subject to a capital gains taxwhen they are sold. Gifts of appreciat-ed stock (held for more than one year)may be deducted in amounts totaling upto 30 percent of your AGI limit.

Consider a long-term gift

Now may be an ideal time to review yourwill and estate plans and include theFoundation through a charitable giftannuity, charitable remainder trust,charitable lead trust, or outrightbequest. We encourage all of our sup-porters to review your plan of action toprovide for you and your loved ones, as

well as your favorite charity, like theNational Right to Work Legal Defenseand Education Foundation, Inc.

Your continued investment in theNational Right to Work Foundationallows us to take on compulsory union-ism in the workplace. Your generositygoes a long way toward assisting thou-sands of workers across the country tostand up and combat union coercivepower through the courts.

Of course, we urge you to consult yourown tax advisor or estate attorney whenconsidering a long-term planned gift tothe Foundation. If you have any ques-tions or need further information, pleasecontact Ginny Smith at 1-800-336-3600.Thank you for your continued supportand generosity.

Former Nurse Files Brief in NLRB “Recess Appointment” Supreme Court CaseBiased labor board has ignored Supreme Court’s restrictions on union bosses’ forced dues powersWASHINGTON, DC – A formerWarwick, Rhode Island nurse has filed abrief with the U.S. Supreme Court in thehigh-profile legal battle over PresidentBarack Obama’s purported “recessappointments” to the National LaborRelations Board (NLRB).

Jeanette Geary filed the amicus briefwith free legal assistance from NationalRight to Work Foundation staff attor-neys after the invalid Obama NLRBeviscerated the Court’s restrictions onunion bosses’ power to force nonmem-bers to pay union dues used for unionpolitical activities.

Appeals Court saysrecess appointmentsunconstitutional

The current case, calledNoel Canningv. NLRB, is on appeal after the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit agreed withFoundation attorneys’ arguments andheld that President Obama’s recessappointments were unconstitutional. Athree judge panel on the appeals courtruled that Obama violated Article II ofthe U.S. Constitution, which requiresthe President to obtain the advice andconsent of the U.S. Senate for appoint-

ments to the most powerful positions inthe executive branch.

In Geary’s latest brief, Foundationstaff attorneys argue that modern tech-nology has reduced the need for recessappointments, which originally wereintended for when a vacancy arose whileCongress was unavailable for extendedperiods of time. Foundation attorneyspoint out that modern communicationstechnology and air travel allowCongress to consider a President’s nom-inees at almost any time, regardless ofthe Senators’ geographic dispersal.

If Foundation attorneys’ argumentthat Obama’s NLRB appointments areunconstitutional prevails at the HighCourt, then the Board had only twovalid members and lacked the quorum itneeded from April 2011 to August 2013to enact rules or enforce federal laborlaw. Such a decision would overturn thelawless ruling in Geary’s case.

President Obama’s unconstitutional“recess” appointments face a toughtest at the Supreme Court inJanuary.

See RECESS APPOINTMENTS page 8

Geary had also previously challengedthe so-called recess appointments in herown case after she experienced firsthandthe disastrous consequences of Obama’sinvalid NLRB.

Union boss politicaldues scheme wouldbe overturned

Geary’s case stems from an unfairlabor practice charge she filed in 2009with the NLRB against the UnitedNurses and Allied Professionals(UNAP) Local 5008 union for illegallyforcing her and other employees to payfor the union’s political lobbying, or losetheir jobs.

In 2012, the rogue Obama NLRBissued a stunning decision – flying inthe face of long-standing, Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent – thatgranted union bosses the power tocharge the nonmember nurses for unionpolitical lobbying, including politicallobbying in other states. Geary’s case isstill pending and further appeals areplanned once the recess appointmentcase is resolved.

“Jeanette Geary’s case is just the latestexample of the Obama NLRB’s consis-tent pro-Big Labor bias,” said RayLeJeunesse, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.“Now, the NLRB must finally justifywhy it continued to operate despite theappeals court’s finding that PresidentObama’s ‘recess’ appointments are con-stitutionally invalid.”

“We hope the Supreme Court willoverturn the President’s illegal actionsand restore the proper balance of poweras prescribed in the U.S. Constitution,”added LaJeunesse. “Such a ruling wouldalso overturn the NLRB’s blatant moveto expand union boss political forced-dues powers at workers’ expense.”

Dear Foundation Supporter:

Workers, who hail from all walks of life, are the lifeblood of the National Rightto Work Foundation’s strategic litigation program.

Yet, after the U.S. Supreme Court surprised legal observers and dismissed aunion appeal of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling inMulhall v.UNITE HERE (See Page 4), a UNITE HERE union spokeswoman told theWashington Examiner:

“That should put an end to the National Right to Work Foundation’s project offinding employees to front for its attacks on these agreements.”

Actually, this is just the beginning.

The Supreme Court’s latest move should serve as encouragement to the hun-dreds of courageous workers who reach out to National Right to WorkFoundation staff attorneys every year seeking to take a stand against union boss-es’ special powers, corruption, and coercion.

You see, the Supreme Court’s order leaves intact a significant victory won byFlorida Mardi Gras Gaming employee Martin Mulhall. Under theMulhall deci-sion, backroom union card check agreements that allow union bosses to sell outworkers’ rights in exchange for corporate concessions and valuable organizingassistance can be found illegal under federal law.

While we were hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would outright strike down“neutrality agreements” that treat workers’ rights as a bargaining chip, the coura-geous actions of one worker have helped equip workers across the nation withanother tool to challenge these backroom union organizing deals.

Your generous support allows us continue to help workers like Mr. Mulhall fightfor freedom in America’s workplaces. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

8 Foundation Action January/February 2014

Message fromMarkMix

PresidentNational Right to WorkLegal Defense Foundation

Recess Appointmentscontinued from page 7