Ugly Decision Points to Need For National Right to Work Law
At the end of last year, a panel of pro-Big Labor federal judges issued a radical ruling that threatens to gut the very limited legal safeguards against union-boss retaliation and discrimination that independent-minded employees lacking state-level Right to Work protections have retained up to now.
In Bahreman v. Allegiant Air et. al, this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel effectively ruled that federal law authorizes employers and union bosses, acting in concert, to punish employees for refusal to pay union dues or fees by cutting their pay and benefits.
Court Okays Discriminatory Compensation Cuts Targeting Workers Who Don’t Join Union
National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix commented:
“Since it was amended by a Big Labor Congress in 1951, the Railway Labor Act [RLA] has wrongly permitted the termination of employees who choose not to bankroll a union they don’t want, and never asked for.
“But until Bahreman, the RLA has never been judicially interpreted to greenlight discriminatory cuts in pay and benefits targeting workers who don’t join a union.
“This alarming development highlights the urgent need for pro-Right to Work members of Congress and President Trump to stem the rising tide of Big Labor oppression of the individual employee’s rights, which is being aided and abetted by activist judges such as the three on the Bahreman panel.
“And the best way by far for the President and his Capitol Hill allies to fight back is by moving to repeal RLA Section 2, Eleventh (a), along with the handful of other provisions in federal law that authorize the termination of employees for refusal to join or bankroll a union.”
Union Bosses’ Coercive Power Over Employees ‘Not Unlike That of a Legislature’
More than 80 years ago, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, whenever union bosses obtain monopoly power to speak for all employees in a “bargaining unit” under the auspices of government policy, that power must unequivocally be “subject to constitutional limitations.”
In his 1944 opinion for the court in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, Chief Justice Harlan Stone found that, under RLA Section 2, Fourth, “a union is clothed with power not unlike that of a legislature . . . .”
Consequently, if the RLA actually permitted the forging of contracts providing for lower pay and benefits for employees who refuse to bankroll a union as a class, as the Bahreman panel claims, the statute would violate those workers’ Fifth Amendment rights.
Judges Effectively Nix ‘Duty Of Fair Representation’
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision effectively negates the ‘duty of fair representation,’ or DFR, elucidated by the High Court in Steele. The DFR curtails union bosses’ ability to use their monopoly privileges under the RLA and other labor laws to ‘deny, restrict, destroy or discriminate against’ nonmembers’ rights,” said Mr. Mix.
“If this decision becomes accepted, airline and railroad union bosses, and potentially all kinds of union bosses, may soon have at their disposal a panoply of additional coercive weapons to pressure workers who disagree with Big Labor to bankroll it anyway.”
Allowing Injustice Against Ali Bahreman to Stand Will Hurt Countless Other Workers
On April 21, Allegiant flight attendant Ali Bahreman, the plaintiff in the Bahreman case, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys who have represented him petitioned the Supreme Court not to allow the Ninth Circuit’s outrageous and dangerous decision to stand.
As Counsel of Record Matthew Gilliam and his fellow Foundation staff attorney Milton Chappell explained in their brief urging the High Court to take up the case, it has repercussions for independent-minded workers nationwide.
Mr. Mix, who heads the Foundation as well as the Committee, explained:
“This case is about much more than whether or not Allegiant executives and Transport Workers Union [TWU] bosses will get away with denying Ali Bahreman the same job-bidding rights and other benefits to which other attendants with the same seniority are entitled.
“The Ninth Circuit has unraveled the DFR for RLA-covered workers, and has paved the way for its unraveling for the millions of additional workers who are covered by the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA].”
National Right Work Law Would Reverse Escalation Of Big Labor Abuses
Ensuring that the Ninth Circuit’s decision does not dismantle the very limited, but critical, protections for employees’ associational freedoms under the RLA and the NLRA is of national importance.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Bahreman ruling is inconsistent with a number of other federal court decisions, as well as unjust, on May 27 the Supreme Court publicly announced it would not review it.
“The reality is that the Supreme Court only grants about 1% of the petitions for review it receives,” noted Mr. Mix.
“That’s why freedom-loving citizens across the country always needed to have an alternative means to undo the damage wrought by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against Mr. Bahreman and other misguided court decisions.
“They have an ideal vehicle in the National Right to Work Act [H.R.1232 and S.533], introduced in Congress this year by Rep. Joe Wilson [S.C.] and Sen. Rand Paul [Ky.] and now sponsored by a total of 121 members of Congress.
“When the Right to Work Bill becomes law, federal policy will plainly state that union bosses are not entitled to extract forced dues or fees from any American worker, anywhere.
“That means TWU, and other union bosses, will no longer have the incentive or the ability to enlist activist judges to help them use economic weapons to pressure union nonmembers into forking over union fees.
“Building congressional support for H.R.1232 and S.533 through persistent lobbying is the best way ordinary citizens can fight back against Big Labor’s compulsory-unionism abuses.
“To be sure, Foundation-backed employee litigation against tyrannical and oppressive union bosses is necessary and vitally important.”
Even Pro-Employee Court Rulings Rarely Revoke Union Dons’ Forced-Dues Privileges
“For example,” observed Mr. Mix, “just this May, in another RLA case argued by the Foundation’s Matthew Gilliam, a federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld $1.1 million in damages against TWU dons and airline executives for violating Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter’s religious freedom.
“Specifically, the unanimous panel decision, which is still under circuit review and could also potentially be appealed, found that the airline, acting at the behest of vindictive union officials, had illegally fired Ms. Carter in 2017 for speaking out against the TWU Local 556 hierarchy’s pro-abortion advocacy.
“In short, she was wrongly discharged for ‘actions she took in furtherance of her religious beliefs.’
“Unfortunately, even if this victory for Ms. Carter and the Foundation stands, dissenting workers like Ms. Carter will still be forced to bankroll the TWU brass in order to keep their jobs.
“A jury, a federal district court, and now a federal appellate court have ruled that TWU kingpins failed to represent Ms. Carter’s best interests.
“But even so she must continue to pay dues or fees to TWU Local 556, or else be fired!”
This article was originally published in our monthly newsletter. Go here to access previous newsletter posts.
To support our cause and help end forced unionism, go here to donate.