foundation actionto defend himself against the bogus libel and “emotional distress” claims,...

FoundationActionFoundationAction

2

3

4

5

6

Automotive Union BrassProsecuted for Bullying Nurses

IN THIS ISSUE

Vol. XXVII, No. 2 8001 Braddock Road • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org March/April 2007

The bi-monthly newsletter

of the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Union Officials Sought $275,000 from Worker WhoCriticized ThemUnion boss scorns: “we don’t like your kind”ORANGE COUNTY, CA – NationalRight to Work Foundation attorneyshelped end a three-year long ordeal thatincluded union lies about the seizure offorced dues, an internal union kangaroocourt, a California state libel lawsuit,and the threat of a quarter million dollarretaliatory fine.

Ultimately, Southern CaliforniaEdison (SCE) employee Randy Boettjer(pronounced “Betcher”) prevailed in hisbattle against bullying by InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers(IBEW) Local 47 union officials. But itwas no cakewalk.

Union officials trump uplawsuit to stifle dissent

Boettjer’s ordeal began in 2003 whenhe took a part-time position with SCE at a private-sector power plant inRosemead, California. Upon beginningwork, Boettjer experienced the first of whatwould become a long pattern of harass-ment by IBEW officials when they toldhim that joining the union and paying fulldues were required or he would be fired.

Soon after Boettjer began working atSCE he grew disenchanted with theIBEW union because of continued mistreatment by union officials.

Boettjer was so disgusted with unionofficials’ deceptions about healthcarebenefits that he created a website criticalof Local 47 officials. (The site is stillonline: www.ibew47.com)When Boettjercalled IBEW offices to question the misstatements, a union official blew himoff, stating “we don’t like your kind.”

In early 2005, Boettjer left his tempo-rary position and took a contract position with SCE that was not underthe union’s monopoly bargaining agree-ment. IBEW officials moved quickly to make an example out of him for speaking out on his website against theirso-called “representation.”

In retaliation for refusing to toe theunion line, Local 47 union officials usedan internal “union court” to fineBoettjer $250,000 and expel him frommembership. On the same day that this

see OVERWHELMING ANGER page 7

Judge Backtracks After KickingFoundation Attorneys Off Case

Foundation-Aided WorkersTestify to Congress

Union Guilty of ThreateningCalifornia Farm Workers

kangaroo court was held, two top IBEWLocal 47 bosses filed a lawsuit againstBoettjer in Orange County SuperiorCourt for libel and “intentional inflictionof emotional distress” on the website. Inthat case, the two top union bosses triedto extract an additional $25,000 fromBoettjer.

Aggressive union retaliation continues

To defend himself against the boguslibel and “emotional distress” claims,Boettjer hired an attorney. Eventually,the court ruled in his favor on all counts– but fighting the frivolous suit costBoettjer thousands of dollars in attorneys’fees. Moreover, that was not the end ofthe union’s intimidation campaign.

Randy Boettjer (pictured holding a checkin front of the federal violation notice)credits the Foundation with helping himget his “life back” after years of uglyunion intimidation.

Foundation Defends SecurityGuard from Union Attack on Job

2 Foundation Action March/April 2007

The NLRB complaint also alleges thatUAW officials unlawfully intimidatednurses by such acts as recording theirlicense plate numbers. The harassmenttook place at and around the medicalcenter, not only in the parking lots, buteven in the cafeteria and bathrooms.

Nurses rise above UAWunion intimidation

Despite this intimidation, the nurseswere ultimately able to collect signaturesfrom 30 percent of employees – theminimum necessary to trigger an NLRB

supervised decertification election. Thesignatures have been certified by NLRBRegion 8 in Cleveland, and the Boardwill hold a secret ballot election throughwhich the health care professionals canrid their workplace of the abusiveunion. The election will be held April 11-13, 2007 for the collective bargaining unitof over 1,000 nurses.

Meanwhile, the NLRB has scheduleda May 2007 hearing before an adminis-trative law judge to prosecute the UAWunion for its unfair labor practices.

Tired of union officials’ mistreat-ment, a group of nurses formed “NursesFor A Union-Free St. Vincent’s”(www.NursesKnowTheTruth.bravehost.com)with the goal of decertifying the unwantedautomotive union, which is alreadynotorious for its central role in hollowingout the struggling American auto industry.

“UAW union officials have unleasheda vicious intimidation campaign on St.Vincent nurses to keep the mandatorydues flowing in,” said Foundation VicePresident and Legal Director RayLaJeunesse. “Given such hostility to therights of the very rank-and-file nursesthat UAW officials claim to ‘represent,’ itcomes as no surprise that many of thenurses the union claims to represent areleading the effort to show union officialsto the door.”

TOLEDO, OH – The National LaborRelations Board (NLRB) has issued aformal complaint and agreed to prose-cute the United Auto Workers (UAW)union for a campaign of harassmentand intimidation aimed at nurses seeking an election to vote the union outat St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center.

The complaint stems from unfairlabor practice charges filed by St.Vincent nurse Amy Anderson in July2006 with help from National Right toWork Foundation attorneys. Anderson’scharges detailed a bullying campaign byUAW union officials as she and otherssought to collect signatures from theirco-workers to throw the unwantedunion out of their workplace.

The NLRB complaint against theUAW union and its Local 12 lists numerous examples of union agents physically intimidating nurses, including“following, surrounding, and impedingaccess to employees.” The complaintalso cites that in one instance a unionofficial physically “struck a clipboardcontaining the petition” from a nurse’shands.

Rev. Fred Fowler Chairman, Board of Trustees

Reed Larson Executive Committee Chairman

Mark Mix President

Stefan Gleason Vice President and Editor in Chief

Ray LaJeunesse, Jr. Vice President and Legal Director

The Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees

whose 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 and Education Foundation, Inc.

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

Foundation Action

Automotive Union Brass Prosecuted for Bullying NursesOhio nurses endure physical intimidation, surveillance, and stalking by union agents

A North Carolina UAW boss under unionpresident Ron Gettelfinger actually blamedthe victim for inviting threats of unionviolence because the worker exercised hisrights: “He did put himself in the limelight.”

uaw

.org

The automotive union is

striving to impose its

destructive forced unionism in

the health care field as well.

March/April 2007 Foundation Action 3

lawyers dusted off tired old argumentsthat attorneys employed by the NationalRight to Work Foundation should bedisqualified from serving as counsel for

the entire class of thousands ofemployees.

In an attemptto make their case,union lawyersserved the Foun-dation with sub-poenas seekingvarious internal

documents that they believed wouldprove that Right to Work attorneys were controlled by an agenda at odds with theinterests of some of the employees whoare not union members. These tacticshave been attempted before with littlesuccess. In fact, Bredhoff and Kaiser, theunion law firm involved, was lambastedby a federal judge in New Mexico for“unethical” tactics when they made

ROCHESTER, NY – A federal judge waspersuaded to backtrack after handingdown a bizarre ruling that appointed aunion lawyer to represent New Yorkpublic employees aided by Right toWork Foundation attorneys in a consti-tutional case.

The case began when five MonroeCounty probation officers approachedthe Foundation for help in filing a class-action lawsuit in federal court againsttwo government unions for violatingtheir First Amendment rights.

The probation officers sued the CivilService Employees Association (CSEA)union and the American Federation ofState, County, and Municipal Employees(AFSCME) union because union offi-cials had unlawfully seized forced uniondues from thousands of New York government employees while refusing toprovide audited disclosure of unionexpenditures.

The five nonunion officers, led byDavid Scheffer, filed the suit in the U.S.District Court for the Western Districtof New York seeking an injunction preventing furthercollection of forcedunion dues, as wellas refunds.

“Although thistype of union abuseis somewhat com-mon, the bizarredevelopments thatensued have raised eyebrows,” statedFoundation Vice President StefanGleason.

Union-abused workersordered to hire AFL-CIOlawyer

After David Scheffer and his coworkersfiled their class-action complaint, union

Judge Backtracks After Kicking Foundation Attorneys Off CaseBig Labor’s “go-to” law firm works overtime to prevent embarrassing judicial action

similar arguments in a case only twoyears earlier.

But not only did Federal JudgeMichael A. Telesca buy the unions’arguments opposing certification of the case as a class action; he also went a step further.

Judge Telesca ruled that Foundation attorneys could not represent the entireclass of nonmembers – including thevery employees who called theFoundation to ask for expert legal help.He therefore ordered the five named plaintiffs to meet with an attorneywho regularly represents unions toestablish an “attorney-client” relation-ship. If the employees refused, the judgeindicated their case would be dismissed.

Rejecting the judge’s attempt toimpose on them a union attorney withan obvious conflict of interest, theemployees asked their Foundationattorneys to request reconsideration ofthis bizarre ruling. If the judge wouldnot relent and dismissed the case,Foundation attorneys intended toimmediately appeal to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit.

Union lawyers act to protect judge from himself

Realizing that the court’s wrong-headed ruling could backfire in a largerfashion, union lawyers filed a motionactually siding with Foundation attorneys.The judge relented, permitting theFoundation attorneys to pursue the casefor the five named plaintiffs.

“That Big Labor’s top legal brassintervened for the named plaintiffsshows just how far over the line JudgeTelesca stepped,” stated Gleason. “Unionlawyers presumably knew that the

Federal Judge Michael A. Telesca’s rulingswent so far out on a limb that even theunions’ lawyers asked him to back off forfear of losing the case on appeal.

see BIZARRE RULING page 8

“Union lawyers served

the Foundation with

subpoenas seeking various

internal documents.”

bu

ffal

o.e

du


Mike Ivey:“Some employeeshave had five ormore harassingvisits from theseunion organizers.The only way, it

seems, to stop the badgering and pres-sure is to sign the card. Moreover, inmany instances, employees who signedcards under pressure or false pretenses

later attempted toretrieve or void thiscard. The unionwould not allow this tohappen, telling themthat they could not doso…This harassmenthas been going onmore than 4 years

with no end in sight. Faced with a never-ending onslaught, we employees feel thatthe UAW is holding our heads under

WASHINGTON, DC – Two employeesrepresented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys providedtestimony in February to the U.S. HouseEducation and Labor Committee abouttheir disturbing experiences.

Mike Ivey, a Foundation-assistedmaterials handler at FreightlinerCustom Chassis Corporation inGaffney, South Carolina, and KarenMayhew, a Portland, Oregon, employeeof Kaiser FoundationHealth Plan, toldCongress why theyoppose H.R. 800,Congressman GeorgeMiller’s (D-CA)union power grab thatwould subject mil-lions of workers tohighly coercive card check unionizationmethods. Here are excerpts from theirtestimony:

water until wedrown.”

Karen Mayhew:“Throughout thiswhole ordeal, mycolleagues and Iwere subjected to

badgering and immense peer pressure.Some of us even received phone calls athome. While I let my feelings towardthis union be known early on, I still wasattacked verbally and in e-mail by mypro-union colleagues. I believe thisabuse directed towards me was at therequest of the union in an effort tointimidate me and have me backdown…In sum, I respectfully submitthat ‘card checks’ are not the preferredmethod of union recognition, and thatthe cases outlined above, filled withunion abuses of a wide variety, are therule in ‘card check’ campaigns, not theexception.”

Important Tax Benefits to YouTax-deductible gifts of cash are excellent. But a gift of stock or other securities to the

National Right to Work Foundation can provide donors with an even bigger tax break.

Not only will you be able to support the Foundation and our expanding strategic litigation and media programs right now,

but you can save significantly on taxes at the same time. Appreciated securities are subject to a capital gains tax when they are sold.

If you donate a gift of stock (that you have owned for more than one year) to the Foundation, the capital gains are not taxable to you.

At the same time, you will benefit from a charitable tax deduction for the FULL fair market value of the securities as of the date of the gift.

Please, consider a gift of stock today. The Foundation's investment account information is as follows:Electronic Transfer of Securities: c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.

UBS Financial Services, Inc.DTC#0221 Account # WS-39563

If you do decide to send a gift of stock, please let us know at 1-800-336-3600 Ext. 3303.

Foundation-Aided Workers Testify to Congress Employees detail illegal union harassment, misrepresentations, and intimidation

“The only way, it

seems, to stop the

badgering and pressure

is to sign the card.”


VENTURA, CA – The CaliforniaAgricultural Labor Relations Board(ALRB) has ordered United FarmWorkers (UFW) union officials to halttheir misrepresentations, illegal threats offirings, and unlawful dues demandsagainst California Mushroom Farmemployees.

Won by National Right to WorkFoundation attorneys, the ALRB rulingexposes the fallacy of earlier knee-jerkUFW comments to the media denyingany wrongdoing.“We give workers a clearchoice and show them how to exercisetheir options,” a union spokesman lied.

The ruling stems from unfair laborpractice charges brought by a pair ofCalifornia Mushroom (formerlyPictSweet Mushroom Farms) workers inearly March 2004, citing that UFWunion officials unlawfully demandedand/or collected full union dues fromtheir paychecks, and threatened to orderdissenting workers fired.

With free legal assistance from the Right to Work Foundation,Guillermo Virgen and Gerardo Mendoza

filed the class-actioncharges for roughly400 workers employedby California Mush-room Farm. In addi-tion to unlawful duesseizures and threats,the union hierarchyfailed to informthousands of laborersstatewide that theyhave the right to certain proceduralprotections to ensurethat their forcedunion dues do notfinance activitiesunrelated to collec-tive bargaining, suchas union politicalactivities.

Though manyworkers contested theamount of forced dues deducted fromtheir paychecks, UFW officials simplyignored their objections.

Agency orders union officials to stop lying

The ALRB ordered UFW union offi-cials to inform California Mushroomemployees of their right to refrain frompaying full union dues, provide workerswith an audit of the union’s books, andestablish and implement procedures bywhich the employees can challenge theamount of forced dues the uniondeducts from their paychecks.

UFW officials also must refund withinterest any unlawfully seized dues,as well as post notices and informemployees both orally and through themail that they have the right to withholdforced dues unrelated to collective bargaining.

Union Guilty of Threatening California Farm WorkersRuling exposes union official’s lie: “we give workers a clear choice”on affiliation

“UFW union officials have repeatedlyrun roughshod over the rights of workers,particularly in California,” said MarkMix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The union hier-archy’s refusal to respect the workers’basic freedoms shows a clear disdain,not only for the employees that theyclaim to represent, but also for the ruleof law.”

UFW union a repeat offender of workers’ rights

In 2004, Foundation attorneysforced the UFW union to pay out over$105,000 in back pay to a large group ofstrawberry pickers unlawfully firedfrom their jobs for refusal to join the union and sign dues check-offauthorizations permitting the union toseize full dues directly from theirwages.

Golden State United Farm Worker militants illegally threat-ened employees’ jobs if they did not pay full union dues tosupport union politics.

Newsclips Requested

The Foundation asks

supporters to keep their scissors

sharp for clipping news items

exposing the role union officials play

in disruptive strikes, outrageous

lobbying, and political campaigning.

Please clip any such stories that

appear in your local paper and mail

them to:

NRTWLDF

Attention: Newsclip Appeal

8001 Braddock Road

Springfield, VA 22160

Dai

ly S

un

dia

l


“I can’t collect unem-ployment because I’m sus-pended [not technicallyfired] until I pay the unionfees,” Vielma told the ElPaso Times. “I’ve got all mybills. I’m two paymentsbehind on my house(mortgage).”

Notwithstanding its“termination request”(pictured) a union officialsnickered to the El PasoTimes that union officialsmerely “asked for Vielmato be removed from thefederal worksite by hisemployer.”

For adhering to hisprinciples, Vielma has paid a terribleprice. But like so many of the employeeswhom the Foundation has the privilegeof assisting, he will not compromise. “I

work to get paid;I don’t pay towork,” he em-phasized.

Texas yet toenforce itsRight toWork law

Under Texas’highly-popular Right to Work law,union membership and dues paymentare strictly voluntary. While Texas stateprosecutors have yet to take action toenforce these clear violations of Texascriminal law, Foundation attorneys persuaded federal labor board prosecu-tors to pursue the matter to the extentpossible under federal law.

AKAL Security and SPFPA unionofficials falsely claim that Vielma and his

colleagues work on federal property that is not protected by the state Right toWork law – and thus they can be forcedto pay union fees as a condition ofemployment. NLRB investigators dis-agreed, and concluded that the unionhierarchy violated federal law byrestraining and coercing employeesexercising their limited rights under federal law to refrain from union participation.

“Any tolerance of this vicious trampling of the freedom of associationis unbecoming of the State of Texas.In the past, the Lone Star State has vigilantly defended its Right to Work lawand it should do so today,” said StefanGleason, vice president of the NationalRight to Work Foundation. “The unionhierarchy is attempting to force Vielmainto the poorhouse for refusing to shutup and pay.”

Foundation attorneys seek reinstate-ment and back pay for Vielma, as well asa notice to all AKAL Security employeesabout their rights to refrain from unionmembership and dues payment.

EL PASO, TX – Right to Work laws are increasingly under attack acrossAmerica.

While the National Right to WorkCommittee battles serious legislativerepeal attempts in Iowa, Nebraska, andSouth Dakota, Foundation attorneys areattacking increasingly brazen unionattempts to flout Right to Work lawsalready on the books.

Juan Vielma, a security guard in ElPaso, Texas, is facing ugly retaliation forrefusal to join the Security, Police andFire Professionals of America (SPFPA)union. Acting at the union bosses’behest, his employer, AKAL Security,indefinitely suspended him without pay in June 2006 until he pays uniondues or fees.

While the Attorney General of Texasis still investigating requests to enforcethe state’s Right to Work criminalstatute, Foundation attorneys havehelped Vielmafile a NationalLabor RelationsBoard (NLRB)charge. Vielma’scharge detailshow the SPFPAunion hierarchyis attemptingto enforce amonopoly bar-gaining agree-ment with his employer that illegallymakes financial support of the union amandatory condition of employment.

Union drives employee into poverty

Since the illegal suspension, Vielmahas been out of work and has struggledto make ends meet.

Foundation Defends Security Guard from Union Attack on JobUnion officials bully worker for asserting rights under Texas Right to Work law

“I work to get paid; I don't pay to work,” said Founda-tion client Juan Vielma. Vielma shows the union’s “termination request” for refusal to pay dues.

“A growing part of the

Foundation’s legal aid program

is enforcement of state Right to

Work laws so that workers may

make a living without paying

tribute to a union.”El

Pas

o T

imes


Overwhelming Anger Faces Those Who Question Union

Later that year, when Boettjer’s non-union contract position ran out, heaccepted a full-time position with SCEand soon received a visit from an IBEWunion official. Despite being ousted fromunion membership in the sham internalunion discipline hearing only a fewmonths earlier, theunion operative –by misrepresentingBoettjer’s legal rights– deceived him intosigning a automaticdues deductioncard for full unionmembership.

Although Local47 higher-ups later admitted that due tohis expulsion they could not legally col-lect any forced union dues fromBoettjer, union officials continued toautomatically deduct so-called “agencyfees” from his paycheck, illegally insistingthat failure to pay would be grounds fortermination.

That’s when Boettjer learned aboutthe National Right to Work Foundationand turned to it for help in protectinghis rights.

Union forced to pay worker’s legal costs

In September 2006, Foundationattorneys aided Boettjer in filing anunfair labor practice charge at theNational Labor Relations Board. Thecharge against the union laid out multipleand repeated violations of Boettjer’srights at the hands of IBEW union officials.

In part, the charge pointed out thatbecause Boettjer had been expelled fromunion membership for reasons otherthan failure to pay compulsory dues,under prior Board precedents – includingcases won by Foundation attorneys –

continued from cover

union officials could not lawfullyrequire Boettjer to pay anything as a condition of employment. This is trueeven though California is not a Right toWork state.

Faced with the charge and the evidence to back it up, Foundation

attorneys soonforced IBEW offi-cials to settle thecharge completelyin Boettjer’s favor.

“Randy Boettjer’sordeal shows thatunion bosses will goto extraordinarylengths to muzzle

anyone who dares point out theabuses of their special privileges,” said FoundationPresident Mark Mix. “Unfor-tunately, these abuses will persistuntil forced unionism is com-pletely eliminated.”

Under the NLRB settlement agree-ment secured by Foundation attorneys,the union hierarchy repaid Boettjermore than $8,000 in attorneys’ fees thathe personally incurred in defendinghimself against the union’s illegal retal-iatory lawsuit, and union officialsreturned over $800 in “agency fees”seized after they expelled him frommembership.

In addition, Foundation attorneysforced union officials to rescind the$250,000 fine levied against Boettjer inthe sham “union court” proceeding andto agree not to collect any future “agencyfees” from Boettjer.

Foundation helps union victim get his “life back”

“The best way I can describe whathappened after I contacted theFoundation is to say it was like a snow-

ball rolling downhill which kept gettinglarger and picking up speed,” Boettjerrecently recounted to Foundation Action.

“When the snowball finally slammedonto the union’s doorstep just beforeChristmas, Santa jumped out and gaveme my life back,” he quipped.

Employee Gary Boettjer maintained awebsite that exposed IBEW bosses’betrayal of workers: www.ibew47.com

Free Newsletter

If you know others

who would appreciate receiving

Foundation Action,

please provide us with

their names and addresses.

We’ll rush them the next

issue within weeks.

“Unfortunately, these

abuses will persist until

forced unionism is

completely eliminated.”


Message from Mark Mix

PresidentNational Right to WorkLegal Defense Foundation

Dear Foundation Supporter:

This issue of Foundation Action illustrates the many methods unionbosses use to intimidate and bully employees who refuse to toe the unionline–including lies, harassment, frivolous lawsuits, fines, and unlawful firings.

In our cover story, you can read about how IBEW union bosses usedtheir internal kangaroo court and later a frivolous libel lawsuit to try to force Randy Boettjer to take down his website critical of union officialsand their actions. These union bullies retaliated against Boettjer to a com-bined tune of $275,000–just for speaking out and informing his fellowworkers.

In El Paso, Texas, union officials ordered Juan Vielma terminated fornot paying dues even though Texas has a Right to Work law (page 6). Nowout of work for over eight months, Juan is struggling just to get by. Yet inthe face of this brutal treatment by union bosses, Vielma defiantlysummed up his struggle for the Right to Work principle when he told theEl Paso Tribune: “I work to get paid; I don’t pay to work.”

Meanwhile, when nurses in Toledo, Ohio tried to vote out an unwantedunion, they found themselves the victims of physical violence and intimi-dation. There, union agents harassed nurses in the parking lot, cafeteria,and even in hospital bathrooms.

It isn’t easy for these workers to stand up to the thuggish behavior of union bosses. That’s why I’m so grateful for your investment in thisimportant work. Without it, these courageous individuals would havenowhere to turn.

These are just a few stories about those we help everyday. There are somany more and so much work to do but time, talent and treasure are limited.

Thank you again for your commitment.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

Bizarre Rulingcontinued from page 3

embarrassing overreach would not onlyresult in the Foundation attorneys’success on the appeal, but it would surely color all other actions taken bythe trial court.”

Previous court: attorneys atunion law firm “unethical”

While the class-action status of theScheffer case awaits a final resolution,Foundation attorneys have pressed for-ward by filing a motion for summaryjudgment for the plaintiffs.

As detailed in the July/August 2004edition of Foundation Action, Bredhoff& Kaiser lawyers made similar attemptsto muscle out Foundation attorneys asclass counsel for a group of hundreds ofblue-collar employees in Harrington v.City of Albuquerque, a case also involvingabuses by AFSCME union officials.

In that case, Senior Judge C. LeroyHansen rebuked the arguments ofAFSCME union lawyers opposingFoundation staff attorneys as classcounsel for all employees, stating, “all[AFSCME union] Defendants haveshown is that Plaintiffs’ counsel want towin this lawsuit...The Defendants donot allege that Plaintiffs’ counsel hasacted unethically or otherwise inappro-priately, as the Defendants’ counsel haverepeatedly done themselves.”

Visit our website

for breaking news:

www.nrtw.org

foundation actionto defend himself against the bogus libel and “emotional distress” claims,...

Documents