FoundationActionFoundationAction

Vol. XXXIV, No. 3 8001 Braddock Road • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org May/June 2014

The bi-monthly newsletterof the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

CHATTANOOGA, TN – Five tirelessChattanooga, Tennessee, Volkswagenworkers have staved off United AutoWorker (UAW) union bosses’ attempt tovacate the results of a unionization elec-tion in which a majority of their votingcoworkers rejected the union’s “repre-sentation.”The UAW lost the election even

though union and company officialscolluded to force the workers into unionranks via a coercive backroom cardcheck scheme, and when that failed,ambushed the workers with a unioniza-tion election just nine days after the votewas announced.After losing the unionization elec-

tion, UAW union officials filed objec-tions with the National Labor RelationsBoard (NLRB) seeking to overturn theresults, setting off a dramatic chain ofevents that ultimately led to the workersforcing UAW officials to abandon theirlegal challenge.

VW workers challengeintimidation tactics

Foundation staff attorneys earlierhelped several VW workers file chargesciting improprieties in the UAW’sunionization campaign. Some of thoseworkers also filed a federal chargeagainst the company after German VWofficials made comments linking union-ization to more production work for thefacility.

Just days after the NLRB dismissedthe workers’ charges, the Boardapproved a rapid-fire unionization elec-tion. Foundation staff attorneys request-ed an official inquiry into the NLRB’sconduct in the case, which was seen asfavorable to the union, and also filed aFreedom of Information Act (FOIA)request with the NLRB seeking full dis-closure regarding the agency’s handlingof the case and its contacts with UAWagents.

Workers reject UAW;union files appeal

Despite the odds, the workers votedto remain free from UAW union boss

See UAW EFFORT TO OVERTURN VOTE page 2

control. Predictably, UAW union offi-cials appealed the election results.After union officials appealed the

vote, VW workers represented byFoundation staff attorneys successfullymoved to intervene in the UAW’s chal-lenge of the election results. Seeking toexclude the workers from defendingtheir vote, union lawyers then asked theNLRB to reverse the Acting RegionalDirector’s ruling allowing the workers tointervene in the process.

Desperate union officialsclaim “conspiracy”

The UAW also requested a delay inthe appeals process and argued that theVW workers should be excluded from

VW Workers Force UAW Bosses to Drop Attempt to Overturn VoteUAW drops appeal after NLRB ruled that Foundation staff attorneys could defend election results

Foundation-assisted VW employeeMike Jarvis was interviewed aboutthe UAW’s attempt to overturn aunionization election.

IN THIS ISSUE

Federal Court UpholdsMichigan’s New Private-Sector Right to Work Law

Foundation-assisted NASAEmployee Files Brief inUnion Election Dispute

Foundation Defends ReligiousSchool Employees fromForced Unionism

Worker Advocate WarnsCongress of NLRB’sProposed Rule ChangesAlaska Worker ChallengesIllegal Teamster Union BossForced Dues Grab

3

4

5

6

7

2 Foundation Action May/June 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 22160

www.nrtw.org • 1-800-336-3600

Foundation Action

the case because they had clearlyexpressed their opinions against theunionization of their workplace leadingup to the election.Furthermore, the UAW brought forth

a UAW employee as a sworn witness,who supposedly overheard a February 2phone conversation at the Atlanta air-port between Foundation staff attorneyGlenn Taubman and an unknown indi-vidual which somehow proved that theFoundation was an “active participant”in a “coordinated campaign” against theUAW.Foundation staff attorneys responded

by filing a brief opposing further delayof the NLRB’s hearing on the union’schallenge. This brief accused the UAWof using false evidence to prompt theBoard to remove the workers from theprocess. The brief also called for aDepartment of Justice investigation toconsider a prosecution of the UAW’s“witness” for filing demonstrably falsestatements under oath, which Taubmaneasily debunked using his cell phonerecords.The workers’ brief states: “That the

UAW resorted to filing a false declara-

tion that could be so easily disproved toattempt to show the existence of a grandand secret conspiracy being wagedagainst it smacks of the desperation andparanoia increasingly gripping theunion following its rejection byVolkswagen employees in the election.”The brief then pointed out that the

UAW’s false accusations against theFoundation are not reason enough toexclude the workers even if the accusa-tions were true. The brief said, “TheUAW’s case proceeds from the misguid-ed premise that it is objectionable if anyentity campaigned or spoke against theunion in the election. While this belief

may reflect how elections are conductedin Venezuela or North Korea, it does notreflect how elections are conducted inthis free nation.”In mid-April, the NLRB rejected the

UAW bosses’ motion to exclude theworkers from the process.

Union bosses’ conduct“shameful”

Seeing the prospect of the workersparticipating in the proceedings, UAWunion bosses decided to save face andabandoned their efforts to overturn theelection.“The NLRB ruled that VW workers

are entitled to defend their vote to keepthe UAW out of their workplace,” saidMark Mix, President of the NationalRight to Work Foundation. “The deci-sion over whether or not to unionize issupposed to lie with the workers, whichmade the attempt by the UAW to shutthem out of this process all the moreshameful.“Now that the NLRB has ruled that

the workers did indeed have a stake inthe process, the UAW backed down,”added Mix. “The real question is: Whywere UAW officials so afraid of workersand their National Right to WorkFoundation-provided attorneys beingpart of this process?”

UAW Effort to Overturn Chattanooga Vote against Unionization Failscontinued from page 1

Unscrupulous UAW bosses had to back down from attempting to overturn aunionization election they lost at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant.

May/June 2014 Foundation Action 3

Foundation-assisted NASA Employee Files Brief in Union Election DisputeGovernment union’s stalling tactics block vote on union decertificationWASHINGTON, DC - A WallopsIsland, Virginia, NASA employee isdefending his and his coworkers’ rightto vote on their union representation forthe first time in 40 years.With free legal assistance from

National Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys, Ronald Walsh, a 10 yearNASA employee, filed the brief with theFederal Labor Relations Authority(FLRA) after the agency rejected hisrequest for a secret-ballot vote.

Union bosses ensconced inworkplace without vote

Forty years ago, in 1971, theAmerican Federation of GovernmentEmployees (AFGE) union hierarchywon monopoly bargaining powers inWalsh’s workplace. Since then, fiveAFGE-affiliated unions have enjoyedmonopoly bargaining powers over theworkplace without a single vote for all ofthe employees.Walsh believes that the union was out

of touch with his coworkers.“I circulated the petition to conduct a

decertification election of the localunion at NASA Wallops Flight Facilitybecause about 80 percent of the roughly150 Federal employees who are repre-sented by the union have already decid-ed not to be dues-paying members and asignificant portion of that group prefersnot to be represented by any union,” saidWalsh.In June of 2013, Walsh circulated a

decertification petition at his workplaceseeking a vote which would allow theworkers to determine whether theywould keep the AFGE Local 1923 unionin their workplace. Within a few days,Walsh obtained the required signaturesfrom 30 percent of his coworkers andfiled the petition with the FLRA on June17, 2013.

Union bosses, agencyblock workers’ petition

An FLRA Regional Director dis-missed Walsh’s petition, stating that hecould only file it between July 10 andAugust 26, 2013. However, the FLRARegional Director allowed the union towait to object to Walsh’s petition onthose grounds until August 27, 2013 –one day after the supposed deadline.Had the union made its objection

within the “window period,” when orig-inally due, Walsh would have been ableto timely refile his petition. Instead, theunion bosses’ delaying tactics, and theFLRA Regional Director’s dismissal ofthe workers’ petition, meant the NASAworkers would have to wait nearly a yearbefore they could resubmit the petition.“The [FLRA Regional Director] took

over six months to issue a ruling thatrejected my petition based on her veryquestionable legal interpretation of theCongressional statute,” explainedWalsh.

“The FLRA’s own manual states that forany representation petition submitted toit, that ‘It is imperative that the RegionalDirector review all incoming petitionsimmediately to identify any defects.’”“The Regional Director certainly

failed to follow that guidance when herdelayed ruling indicated that my peti-tion was determined to be defectivebased on a simple issue that I could haveeasily corrected within her time limits ifshe had notified me of that questionabledefect sooner,” Walsh continued. “Itappears that the FLRA is more interest-ed in protecting unions than it is in pro-tecting the rights of the Federal workersin those unions to exercise their right todecide by secret ballot election if theywant their association with the union tocease.”Walsh has since appealed the

Regional Director’s ruling. With freelegal assistance from Foundation staffattorneys, he also filed a brief with theFLRA in February outlining why thepetition was properly filed.

Decertification petitionsnot subject to “windowperiods”

The FLRA Regional Director has notpreviously decided whether a “windowperiod” applies to decertification peti-tions filed by individuals. Consequently,the FLRA allowed anyone interested tofile briefs in the case.Foundation staff attorneys argue in

Walsh’s brief that the FLRA’s so-called“window period” does not apply to indi-vidual workers’ decertification petitions,and that any other interpretation of thestatute could violate workers’ FirstAmendment rights.Foundation attorneys state in the

brief that the workers are being “gagged

With Foundation legal assistance,veteran NASA employee RonaldWalsh is trying to eject an unwantedunion from his workplace.

See UNION OFFICIALS STALL page 8

4 Foundation Action May/June 2014

and refraining from dues payments,even though Michigan’s Right to Worklaws unequivocally protect those rights.Furthermore, federal labor law also pro-tects workers’ absolute right to refrainfrom union membership at any time,without penalty.

Six more public schoolworkers file state charges

Six public school employees -Lindsey Bentley of Muskegan, AlphiaSnyder of Battle Creek, Mary Derks ofWhitehall, Mary Carr of Grand Blanc,Becky Lapham of Grand Rapids, andTina House, a Lapeer County employee- have also filed state charges with theMichigan Employment RelationsCommission (MERC) with the help ofFoundation staff attorneys.Five of the public school employees

filed their charges against the MichiganEducation Association (MEA) unionbecause MEA union officials told themthat they would have to wait for a union-designated “window period” of August 1through August 31 before they couldresign union membership and refrainfrom union dues payments.House was also denied her right to

refrain from union dues payments afterTeamster Local 214 union officials toldher that she would have to wait for aunion-designated “window period” inJuly 2014 before she could revoke herdues deduction authorization and optout of union dues.Lapham filed additional charges

against the union and the Grand Rapidsschool district for agreeing to illegallyamend and extend forced unionism pro-visions in the monopoly bargainingagreement. Michigan’s Right to Worklaws provide that no employee can berequired to pay union dues as a condi-tion of employment after March 28,

DETROIT, MI – Just days after the one-year anniversary of Michigan's private-sector Right to Work law going intoeffect, a federal court upheld the law’smajor provisions against a spuriousAFL-CIO union challenge.After suffering a major legislative

defeat and being rejected by voters whenthey attempted to entrench forcedunionism in the state constitution,Michigan union bosses are seeking tostrike down Michigan's private-sectorRight to Work law in the courts. In thiscase, AFL-CIO union lawyers argued atthe U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Michigan that federal lawpreempts the enforcement of state Rightto Work laws in several respects.

Workers file briefdefending Right to Work

With free legal assistance fromFoundation staff attorneys, Michiganworkers Terry Bowman, BrianPannebecker, Aaric Lewis, and RobertHarris filed a brief in the case defendingMichigan’s private-sector Right to Worklaw.All four workers are or were

employed in workplaces where a forceddues contract was in place between theiremployers and union hierarchies beforethe Right to Work law was enacted.Consequently, the workers can be forcedto pay union dues or fees just to keeptheir jobs.In the brief, Foundation staff attor-

neys pointed out that the 24 state pri-vate-sector Right to Work laws are pro-tected under federal labor law and citevarious federal and state precedents thatsupport their argument. Despite priorpreemption challenges to other stateRight to Work laws, there is not a singlecase invalidating a Right to Work law onthat basis.

The court dismissed the union’s chal-lenges to the core provisions ofMichigan’s Right toWork law. Thus, pri-vate-sector Michigan workers will con-tinue to enjoy the Right toWork withouthaving to pay dues to an unwantedunion.

Michigan workers standup for new Right to Workprotections

Meanwhile, with free legal assistancefrom National Right to WorkFoundation staff attorneys, severalMichigan workers are challenging unionbosses’ illegal attempts to prevent themfrom exercising their rights under thestate’s Right to Work laws.In cases across the state, union offi-

cials are attempting to force workers toabide by union bylaws and “windowperiods” in order to prevent employeesfrom resigning their union membership

A Michigan teacher union is attempt-ing to force nonunion educators topay dues, in defiance of that state’srecently-enacted Right to Work law.

Federal Court Upholds Michigan’s New Private-Sector Right to Work LawWorkers turn to Foundation for help to refrain from union membership, dues payments

MERC and two private-sector workerswho filed federal charges with theNational Labor Relations Board(NLRB).The outcomes of these cases could

very well determine how Michigan’sRight to Work laws are enforced forMichigan workers seeking to exercisetheir rights under the new legislation.Fortunately, National Right to Work

Foundation staff attorneys are workingwith concerned Michigan employees toensure that Big Labor’s legal counter-attack won’t hollow out Michigan’s Rightto Work protections.“After suffering major legislative and

judicial defeats, union bosses are simply

attorneys point out in their brief, theuniversity’s educational mission is inex-tricably linked to the teachings of theLutheran Church.Foundation attorneys note that

unionization could place the universityin direct conflict with the LutheranChurch. If the NLRB recognizes Local925 as the adjuncts’ exclusive bargainingagent, union officials will be empoweredto negotiate over terms and conditionsof employment with Pacific LutheranUniversity. Those negotiations couldforce university administrators to makeconcessions that contradict the school’sreligious mission, such as mandatingcertain services opposed by the churchunder the university’s health plan.Foundation attorneys also argue that

adjunct professors are considered man-agers under the National LaborRelations Act, rendering them statutori-ly ineligible for unionization.“Aided and abetted by a pliant NLRB,

Big Labor is taking aim at religiously-affiliated universities,” continuedSemmens. “The SEIU’s ultimate goal isto force more people to pay union dues,even if it means infringing on the liber-ty of religious institutions.”

ignoring Michigan’s new Right to Worklaws to keep the forced-dues gravy traingoing,” said Ray LaJeunesse, VicePresident of the National Right to WorkFoundation. “We will do everything inour power to defend the rights ofMichigan workers who wish to refrainfrom joining or paying dues to a union.”“We’re also heartened by the growing

number of public and private sectoremployees from across the state ofMichigan who have joined the fight toprotect their Right to Work fromscofflaw union bosses,” addedLaJeunesse. “Without their couragousefforts, our legal aid program wouldn’tfunction.”

May/June 2014 Foundation Action 5

2013, but forced dues contracts betweenunions and employers entered into priorto the laws’ effective date remain in forcethroughout the state until they expire.After those forced dues provisionsexpire, workers are free to refrain fromunion dues payments under the Right toWork laws.

Cases could determineRight to Work enforcement

In similar cases across Michigan,Foundation staff attorneys have alreadyassisted five other public-sector workerswho filed similar charges with the

SPRINGFIELD, VA – In late March, theNational Right to Work Foundationfiled an amicus curiae (“friend of thecourt”) brief in a case involving PacificLutheran University and ServiceEmployees International Union (SEIU)Local 925. Foundation staff attorneysfiled the brief in support of PacificLutheran’s efforts to resist unionencroachment on its religious preroga-tives.Under the auspices of the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB), SEIULocal 925 officials are attempting toorganize adjunct professors at PacificLutheran University. According toFoundation staff attorneys, this violateslongstanding Supreme Court precedent,which holds that the Board has noauthority over religiously-affiliatedschools.

Unionization couldundermine schools’religious mission

“The last few years have made itabundantly clear that the Obama LaborBoard has no interest in playing by the

rules if there’s an opportunity to expandunion power,” said Patrick Semmens,Vice President of the National Right toWork Foundation. “Allowing the SEIUto target Pacific Lutheran University isjust the latest example of this trend.”Foundation attorneys contend that

the Establishment Clause of the FirstAmendment prohibits the federal gov-ernment from regulating the religiouswork of churches. Pacific LutheranUniversity was established by theLutheran Evangelical Church inAmerica and continues to operate underthe church’s authority. As Foundation

Pacific Lutheran University andother religious institutions of higherlearning are the SEIU’s latest target.

Foundation Defends Religious School Employees from Forced UnionismFoundation attorneys file brief to protect religious institutions from onerous NLRB regulations

6 Foundation Action May/June 2014

email addresses, and schedules - toaggressive union organizers.Messenger described the NLRB’s pro-

posal as “a serious invasion of employ-ees’ personal privacy—namely, the dis-closure of their private phone numbers,email addresses, and work schedules tounions, and thus to officials and sup-porters.”According to Messenger, it “is both

foreseeable and inevitable” that unionsupporters “will misuse this informationfor wrongful purposes,” including theharassment of employees who vocallyoppose unionization.“Big Labor thrives on employee igno-

rance, which is why union politicos areeager to shorten the time period beforea unionization election,” continued Mix.“The National Right to WorkFoundation, which represents thou-sands of employees nationwide, opposesthese changes because they would pre-vent workers from making an informeddecision about unionization.”

WASHINGTON, DC – In early March,National Right to Work Foundationstaff attorney William Messenger testi-fied before the U.S. House Committeeon Education and the Workforce on thedangers of the National Labor RelationsBoard’s (NLRB) proposed election rules.The committee, which is chaired by

Rep. John Kline (R-MN), held a hearingentitled “Culture of Union Favoritism:The Return of the NLRB’s AmbushElection Rule” on a series of electionrule changes proposed by the NLRB thatwould leave employees uninformedabout potential downsides to unioniza-tion. Most significantly, NLRB’s rulechanges would dramatically shorten theperiod between when union organizerssubmit a petition for a unionizationelection and the date of the vote.Messenger’s testimony highlighted

the importance of giving workers timeto consider the pros and cons of union-ization before holding such an impor-tant vote. Unionization elections deter-mine whether union officials areempowered to negotiate terms and con-ditions of employment for all workers ina given bargaining unit. In states with-out Right to Work laws, the stakes areeven higher: If union officials get in,they can force all employees to payunion dues as a condition of employ-ment, even those who have no interestin joining or supporting the union.

Foundation staff attorneycriticizes rule changes

“Once again, the Obama NLRB isattempting to tilt the playing field in BigLabor’s favor,” said Mark Mix, Presidentof the National Right to WorkFoundation. “We’re doing everything wecan to expose this for what it is: anothergiveaway by the Obama Administrationto its union boss allies.”

Messenger, a veteran Foundationstaff attorney who has argued before theU. S. Supreme Court, pointed out thatdramatically shortening the periodbefore unionization elections will hurtworkers’ ability to cast an informed vote.“The short time frame under the pro-

posed rules will make it extremely diffi-cult, if not impossible, for individualemployees opposed to unionization toorganize against a union’s well-fundedand professionally orchestrated cam-paign to win the monopoly bargainingprivilege,” wroteMessenger in testimonysubmitted to the Committee for thehearing.

NLRB proposals threatenworker privacy

Messenger also criticized a proposedrule change that would require employ-ers to hand over workers’ contact infor-mation - including phone numbers,

Foundation staff attorney William Messenger testified before Congress onthe dangers of the NLRB’s proposed election rule changes.

Worker Advocate Warns Congress of NLRB’s Proposed Rule ChangesFoundation staff attorney explains that “ambush” election rules would undermine workers’ rights

Now is the time to consider a gift ofappreciated stocks, mutual funds orother securities that have increasedsubstantially in value since they werepurchased and have been held for overa year. Such appreciated securities aresubject to a capital gains tax when theyare sold by the owner. Gifts of stockmay be deducted in amounts totalingup to 30 percent of your AGI limits.Considering the volatility of the stockmarket with its highs and lows, a gift ofstock may be the best option for you to

support the National Right to WorkLegal Defense and EducationFoundation today.

Making a gift of cash, securities or anylong-term planned gift can make a realdifference in achieving your financialgoals while supporting the tax-deductible work of the Foundation.Thank you in advance for your interestand support. Without your assistance,we could not continue free legal assis-tance to thousands of employees.

May/June 2014 Foundation Action 7

Alaska Worker Challenges Illegal Teamsters Union Boss Forced Dues GrabUnion officials ignored employee’s rights to refrain from union membership and full dues paymentsWASILLA, AK – With the help ofNational Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys, a First Student employeehas filed federal unfair labor practicecharges against her employer and theGeneral Teamsters Local 959 union fordemanding she join the Teamsters orlose her job and forcing her to pay fullunion dues.Ruth Chester, an administrative aide

with First Student, has never been amember of Local 959. Despite her deci-sion to refrain from union membership,Teamster officials demanded she jointhe union and pay full dues.Within the past six months, more-

over, First Student has deducted fullunion dues from Chester’s paycheck andpassed them on to Local 959, eventhough Chester has never authorizedthose deductions. Federal labor law pro-hibits dues collection without a signeddues checkoff authorization card.“Teamster bosses – aided by pliant

company officials – are ignoring federallabor law to collect full dues from anemployee who has no interest in joiningor supporting their union,” said RayLaJeunesse, Vice President of theNational Right to Work Foundation.

“Foundation staff attorneys have inter-vened to ensure Ruth Chester’s rightsare respected.”

Employee rights limited innon-Right to Work states

Because Alaska lacks a Right to Worklaw, employees can be forced to payunion dues or fees as a condition ofemployment. However, workers havethe right to refrain from formal unionmembership and opt out of payingunion dues for activities unrelated toworkplace bargaining, such as politicalactivism and members-only events.

Unions are also required to provideobjecting nonunion employees with anindependently-audited breakdown oftheir financial expenditures to helpworkers determine what dues they arelegally obligated to pay. Teamster offi-cials never provided Chester with anyinformation on her financial obliga-tions to the union.Chester’s charges will now be inves-

tigated by the National Labor RelationsBoard, a federal agency responsible foradministering private sector labor law.“First Student and the Teamsters

both have troubling histories of ignor-ing workers’ rights,” continuedLaJeunesse. “Foundation staff attorneyshave represented other First Studentemployees in Alaska, Ohio, and Oregonwhose rights were also violated byunion officials.”“We hope these charges will force

the company and the union to respectemployees’ rights to refrain from unionmembership and the payment of fulldues,” said LaJeunesse. “However, thistype of abuse will continue as long asAlaska lacks a Right toWork law, whichwould make union membership anddues payments voluntary.”

Foundation staff attorneys havehelped several First Student employ-ees assert their rights.

Have You Considered a Giftof Stock to the Foundation?

Make Donations of Stock to:Bank of America, N.A.100 W. 33rd StreetNew York, NY 10001

First Credit: Merrill Lynch11951 Freedom Drive, 17th Floor

Reston, VA 20190Routing (ABA) Number: 026009593

DTC# 5198Account # 6550113516

FBO: National Right to WorkLegal Defense and Education

Foundation, Inc.Foundation Account #86Q-04155

from presenting to the government theirown views about [monopoly] bargain-ing. Instead, their views are presented bya Union they never had an opportunityto vote upon.”Furthermore, the Regional Director’s

“repression of individual freedomwouldseem appropriate only for some darkgulag.”“Applying the plain language of the

[law] gives employees great freedom ofchoice,” the brief continues. “No longerwill they be chained, as here, to a forty-year sentence… The oppression of theold and stale will be replaced with thefreedom that comes from an opportuni-ty for a voice and a vote.”“The FLRA should follow the letter of

the law and allow these workers todetermine their workplace representa-tion themselves,” said Patrick Semmens,Vice President of the National Right toWork Foundation. “No worker shouldbe forced to accept a union’s representa-tion without a say in the matter.”

Dear Foundation Supporter:

It all started simply enough, but in the end we may have changed the future ofthe American auto industry.

Just over a year ago, your Foundation began hearing reports of a UAW cardcheck drive at Chattanooga’s Volkswagen plant. We responded by running ads inChattanooga to let the workers there know they could turn to the National Rightto Work Foundation to defend their rights.

Without Foundation-provided legal aid, it’s all but certain that the UAW wouldhave been installed by an unreliable and coercive card check drive. Instead,workers forced a secret ballot election and overcame extraordinary odds (see ourcover story) to eventually vote against unionization, 712 to 626.

It should have ended there, but the UAW instead turned to the NLRB to over-turn the election. With Volkswagen refusing to defend the results, UAW bossesassumed it would be easy to get the workers’ decision overturned.

Once again, Foundation staff attorneys sprang into action, successfully arguingthat if VW wouldn’t defend the vote against the union, its employees should beallowed to. Faced with real opposition from Foundation staff attorneys, theUAW eventually withdrew their challenge to the election result and theVolkswagen workers’ vote against the UAW was certified.

There’s no question in my mind that the Foundation’s free legal aid program wasthe difference between a successful UAW card check drive in Chattanooga andthe UAW being defeated in a secret ballot vote.

It’s the type of outcome that makes me proud of the work your Foundation does.You should be proud too, because your support makes it all possible.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

8 Foundation Action May/June 2014

Message fromMarkMix

PresidentNational Right to WorkLegal Defense Foundation

Union Officials Stallcontinued from page 3

Newsclips RequestedThe Foundation is always onthe lookout for stories expos-ing union boss corruption,mismanagement, and abuse.Please clip any stories thatappear in your local paper

and mail them to:

NRTWLDFAttention: Newsclip Appeal

8001 Braddock RoadSpringfield, VA 22160

Supporters can also emailonline stories towfc@nrtw.org