Foundation FoundationThe bi-monthly newsletter of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

Vol. XXVI, No. 1 8001 Braddock RoadActionAction • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org January/February 2006

Counsel has already deemed this to be unlawful company Freightliner and UAW assistance to the union. UAW officials outlined Face Racketeering their lengthy list of conces- sions in a once-secret docu- Suit for Backroom ment titled “Preconditions to Card Check Procedure” Sweetheart Deal which was signed by Freightliner and UAW Vice Foundation challenges quid President Nate Gooden. In pro quo forcing workers into the earlier Foundation case, union ranks the National Labor Relations Board’s General Freightliner employees Tim Cochrane (speaking) and Counsel already found the CHARLOTTE, NC - Foundation attor- Katherine Ivey are joined by Right to Work staff in a “preconditions” to be illegal press conference outside UAW headquarters in eco- neys opened a new front in their national premature bargaining since nomically-devastated Detroit, Michigan. battle against coercive union organizing the UAW union had not yet tactics by filing a federal racketeering in advance, to significant concessions at been selected by a majority of complaint against a large subsidiary of the expense of the Freightliner workers employees. Daimler Chrysler and its hand-picked at its non-union facilities in North In such Top-Down “card check” union, the United Auto Workers. Carolina in exchange for valuable com- organizing schemes, employees are fre- Alleging an illegal quid pro quo pany assistance in forcing those workers quently coerced or misled into signing between Freightliner and UAW officials, under a union contract. “union authorization cards,” which are five autoworkers from three facilities in According to the terms of the scheme then counted as “votes” in favor of North Carolina filed a class-action federal outlined in documents uncovered by the see RACKETEERING, page 7 racketeering lawsuit and announced it Foundation, UAW officials expressly at a press conference in front of the agreed to limitations on wages, cancella- UAW headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. tion of an employee profit sharing The cutting-edge suit, which seeks bonus, an increase in the health care costs IN THIS ISSUE triple damages, details how union high- shouldered by employees, and other con- er-ups entered into a secret arrangement cessions—effectively handing over con- 2 Worker Slaps Union with Charges with company executives to force more trol of the union to the company. for Blocking His Promotion workers into dues-paying ranks. Freightliner, in turn, agreed to host 3 Bill and Carol Barrows : A Profile in compulsory “captive audience” meetings Commitment on company time during which union Backroom deal sells out organizers could propagandize employees, 4 Right to Work Helps Gallo Wine workers granted union organizers wide access to Employees in California unsuspecting employees, and pledged to 5 Charitable Trusts : A Flexible The complaint outlines a secret stay silent about the possible conse- Giving Plan arrangement between Freightliner and quences of unionization. In a related the UAW in which union bosses agreed, Foundation case, the NLRB’s General

2 Foundation Action January/February 2006 Worker Slaps Union with Charges for Blocking His Promotion Union bosses retaliated against employee for defending coworkers’ constitutional rights

TRENTON, NJ - In July 2005, New elevated title and is usually a rubber- Jersey State Department of salary. Before Lipsius stamp process. In the Environmental Protection (NJDEP) filed the class-action four years before employee Gary Lipsius was told by his lawsuit against CWA Lipsius’ request was department that he would be receiving a Local 1034 and denied, over 400 such promotion and a corresponding raise. the NJDEP, union requests had been However, before it went into effect, officials had even approved without a union officials from the Commu- expressed support for single one being nications Workers of America (CWA) his promotion. turned down. Local 1034 stepped in and successfully However, once “The bosses of the lobbied the agency to block the promo- Lipsius stood up to the CWA union want to tion — in direct retaliation for a union brass, CWA offi- make an example of class-action, civil-rights lawsuit that cials wanted their Gary Lipsius to intimi- Foundation attorneys had helped revenge. After an inde- date New Jersey public Lipsius file in 2004 against the union for pendent classification employees who refuse violations of New Jersey public employees’ Top CWA union boss, Carla Katz, reviewer agreed that personally intervened to punish to toe the line,” said constitutional rights. Lipsius was entitled to a New Jersey State employee for Foundation President In response, National Right to Work the promotion and pay opposing the union. Mark Mix. “Union Foundation attorneys again came to the raise based on his officials go to great New Jersey state employee’s aid, filing duties, union officials lengths to bully rank- unfair labor practice charges against the switched their position and began and-file workers. It’s vital that the CWA local and the NJDEP. actively opposing the promotion Lipsius Foundation protect people like Gary had been found to deserve. every step of the way.” Union bosses seek payback Union officials began attending meetings about Lipsius’ promotion and Union officials have a Lipsius petitioned the NJDEP for a eventually the CWA local interfered promotion in 2003 because his ongoing with the reclassification request, resulting history of violating workers’ duties more accurately reflected an in denial of the promotion despite what constitutional rights CWA officials were determined to seek retribution against Lipsius because, Foundation Action in 2004, he sought to protect his consti- tutional rights and the rights of thou- sands of other New Jersey public Rev. Fred Fowler Chairman, Board of Trustees employees in a lawsuit also filed with Reed Larson Executive Committee Chairman help from the National Right to Work Mark Mix President Stefan Gleason Vice President and Editor in Chief Foundation. The union hierarchy had Ray LaJeunesse, Jr. Vice President and Legal Director been unlawfully compelling employees to pay compulsory union dues for politics

Distributed by the without due process. In a settlement in National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. that case, union officials were forced to 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org • 1-800-336-3600 recognize the rights of Lipsius and his coworkers who had dues illegally taken

The Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees from their paychecks. 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. see RETRIBUTION, page 6

January/February 2006 Foundation Action 3 Bill and Carol Barrows : A Profile in Commitment Longtime Foundation supporters make the gift of a lifetime

Bill and Carol Barrows have always been amount through a charitable remainder very special members of the Right to unitrust (CRUT), one of many planned Work family. Their longtime support giving options available to Foundation has served as an example of the impact donors (for information on charitable that donors can have on the lives of trusts, see the article on page 5). many workers who’ve been abused by In addition to helping ensure that compulsory unionism. Right to Work will have funds for the Before retiring, Bill was Vice future of its strategic litigation program, President of International Operations at the Barrows also considered the financial Fusite Corporations, which had plants benefits of such a gift. all over the world that manufactured The Barrows’ trust will provide them electrical terminals for refrigeration and income for the rest of their lives, and air conditioning systems. Carol has a allows them a substantial charitable background in nutrition, but moved on Bill and Carol Barrows, dedicated Right income tax deduction right away (in to open her own company, Drivers to Work supporters and charter members fact, in their case the deduction exceeds Unlimited, which offered driving and of the Foundation's Legacy Society, have car relocation services to clients in New the annual limit of 50% of their adjusted shown their commitment once again by gross income, so the deduction will York State. establishing a Charitable Remainder Trust. Now they enjoy their time together in carry over for up to five years). their homes in Colorado and Florida. economic consequences inherent in a Ultimately, however, their CRUT was They love to travel, and since Bill got his forced unionism system, and as created as a means to make a very generous pilot’s license about 17 years ago, he has freedom-loving individuals, both gift to the Foundation and to support its enjoyed flying with his wife to many of passionately want to stop the trampling work well into the future. At the end of the different locations they have always of individual liberty that goes hand in their lives, one half of the remainder of dreamed of visiting. hand with union compulsion. This the funds in their trust will be trans- desire led the Barrows to the Right ferred to the Right to Work Foundation. to Work movement. The Barrows’ passion for Their ongoing generous support of Right to Work Right to Work has allowed the Barrows Smart tax planning pays off to play an active role in the struggle to Bill became a Right to Work supporter bring freedom back to the workplace, “The great thing about the planned in 1968, after witnessing several battles and over the years they have truly done giving program is that it allows donors between his company and various union their part to further the movement. So to make the gift of a lifetime — in a way officials. While Fusite and their employees it is no surprise that they have stepped that meets the donor’s needs as well. always won these fights, he became up once again to become charter mem- There are so many different ways to give; frustrated seeing the union bosses come bers of the new National Right to Work once you find the method of giving that back year after year – disrupting the Foundation Legacy Society by making is right for you, you may be surprised at business and crippling its ability to plans to support the Foundation how much you can afford,” said Carol. provide more good jobs. Bill knew that through their estate planning. “Besides which, I have a great interest in the amount of energy wasted struggling not letting money go into paying exces- with local union bosses could have been Bill and Carol make planned sive taxes, so why not give as much as used much more productively, to you can and ensure that your estate the benefit of both the company as giving work for them doesn’t wind up paying Uncle Sam?” a whole and its employees. Carol’s “We don’t mind paying taxes,” experience being a business owner led In fact, the Barrows feel so strongly Bill added, “we definitely pay enough of her to similar conclusions. about Right to Work that they have Both recognize the devastating chosen to leave the Foundation a sizable see BARROWS, page 6

4 Foundation Action January/February 2006 Right to Work Helps Gallo Wine Employees in California UFW union officials block counting of over 300 grape pickers’ votes to oust unwanted union

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - National Right Minor employer to Work Foundation attorneys are assisting a Gallo of Sonoma Wine infractions employee in his appeal to the California should not negate State Supreme Court seeking the counting employee choice of ballots cast by over 300 Gallo workers in a three-year-old union election. Foundation attorneys The grape pickers, led by Roberto point out that the Parra, were voting to decertify the ALRA is modeled after unwanted United Farm Workers (UFW) the National Labor union as their monopoly bargaining Relations Act, which representative. Parra is now backed by prescribes that employer Foundation attorneys in challenging interference with an UFW union officials’ attempt to bypass employee election must the employees’ right to throw out the be substantial to justify unwelcome union. UFW union militants are serial lawbreakers: In 2003, Founda- that the result be set UFW officials have successfully tion attorneys spurred their prosecution for ordering the aside, and that less seri- stonewalled a counting of the ballots by mass firings of over 100 berry pickers. ous interference should alleging unlawful interference by the not negate the exercise employer in the run up to the election. After Parra collected the signatures, “Two wrongs don’t make a right. UFW union officials saw the handwriting of the employees’ free will. UFW union officials should not be on the wall and scrambled to intervene. If the decertification election ballots allowed to thwart employee free choice In a desperate maneuver to cling to their are counted and a majority of the because of a few technical violations by forced union dues revenue stream, UFW employees voted against the union, their employer,” said Foundation Vice union officials put a halt to a counting workers would be free to negotiate their President Stefan Gleason. “Many Gallo of the votes by filing unfair labor practice own terms and conditions of employment workers want no part of this union, but charges alleging unlawful employer and could be rewarded on their individual UFW officials won’t take no for an interference. merit. answer and are abusing the process to While the ALRB held that minor see GALLO WINE, page 8 maintain their privileged position.” employer violations could be grounds to throw out an election at the expense of the employees, this finding conflicts UFW union officials suppress with federal labor statutes after which employees’ free will California law is modeled. Consequently, Parra sought the Foundation’s help in In 2003, Parra obtained the signatures of filing an appeal in December with the over 30 percent of his colleagues to petition state’s highest court after the Court of for a decertification election. Under the Appeals for the Third Appellate District California Agricultural Labor Relations upheld the ALRB’s decision in a Act (ALRA), if 30 percent or more of the perfunctory one-line ruling. employees in a bargaining unit sign a “Before the union took over, the decertification petition, the California company paid for our health care. Not Agricultural Labor Relations Board any more,” said Parra. “We realize that (ALRB) will conduct a secret ballot elec- the UFW is violating our rights and we tion to determine if a majority of the are pleading for our votes to be counted UFW union bosses are circumventing employees wish to stop the union from because they lie and they never live up to Gallo grape pickers’ ability to expel any further monopoly representation. their promises.” the unwanted union.

January/February 2006 Foundation Action 5 Charitable Trusts : A Flexible Giving Plan Donors may structure tax savings, income, and remainder to suit individual needs

Charitable Trusts are a wonderful giving donations to their favorite charities, and vehicle for those wishing to make a gen- receive substantial income tax deduc- erous contribution but also wanting to tions. Once a charitable remainder meet other personal financial goals. annuity trust (CRAT) is funded, the Since they can be tailored to meet the trust regularly distributes a fixed needs of the individual donor, they are amount to the donor, thus providing the perhaps the most flexible tool available donor with income. The particular dol- in the planned giving world. Below is a lar amount and the frequency of the dis- general description of the different tributions (monthly, quarterly, annually) even the person receiving those income types of charitable trusts available. are determined when the trust is set up. payments (usually the donor, although For more detailed information on how The income beneficiary may also be the donor can use this vehicle to provide these trusts can be tailored to meet your someone other than the donor, and for a loved one) are determined at the needs, contact Elisa Sumanski toll-free at sometimes this vehicle is used to pro- time the CRUT is set up. There are four (800) 336-3600 or return the reply form vide income for a loved one. CRATs types of CRUTs that make this option included in the newsletter. As always, you allow donors to know exactly how much even more flexible: are encouraged to speak to your own income they will receive with each pay- -A Fixed Percentage Unitrust or attorney or financial advisor about your ment, regardless of the performance of the “straight unitrust” pays a percentage of specific situation. trusts. At the end of the donor’s life (or the value of the trust’s assets, revalued a designated number of years) the assets annually. remaining in the trust are transferred to -A Net Income Unitrust pays the stated Charitable Lead Trusts the charity or charities. The donor may percentage or the net income of the be eligible for a substantial income tax trust, whichever is less. This is useful You don’t necessarily need to choose deduction the year the trust is set up. when the assets funding the trust won’t between leaving a generous donation to Additionally, CRATs are not subject immediately produce income. your favorite charity and providing for to capital gains taxes, so donors fre- -A Net Income Plus Makeup Unitrust is your heirs. A Charitable Lead Trust quently fund them with highly appreciated the same as the net income trust, except (CLT) allows you to do both, while also assets — such as stocks or real estate. avoiding most gift and estate taxes. You that those years when the payment is set up a trust fund that makes annual less than the stated percentage are gift payments to the charities of your Charitable Remainder “made up for” in years when net income choice for a designated number of years. earned by the trust exceeds that stated These payments can be a fixed amount Unitrust percentage. (lead annuity trust) or a percentage of -A Flip Unitrust starts out as a net trust assets (lead unitrust). Then, at the A charitable remainder unitrust income trust and “flips” to a fixed per- end of a period of time that you desig- (CRUT) is similar to a CRAT, and has centage trust when a “trigger event” nate, the assets used to fund the gift can almost identical tax benefits. The differ- occurs. The trigger event can be almost be returned to you, or to your heirs if ence is that the income distributions are any event that is outside the donor’s you wish. Using this tool, it’s possible to not a fixed amount. Instead, these dis- control — for example, a birth or death pass along wealth to family members tributions are based on a percentage of or reaching a certain age. On the other either partially or entirely free of estate the value of the trust. Once you’ve set hand, an event like retirement is within and gift taxes. up and funded the CRUT, it will distribute the donor’s control and thus could not a percentage of the trust’s assets to you be a trigger event. for life or a designated number of years. Charitable Remainder Afterwards, the assets remaining in the Visit our website Annuity Trust trust are distributed to the charities of for breaking news: your choice. The percentage used to This tool allows donors to turn assets determine the income payments, the www.nrtw.org into regular income, make generous frequency of income payments, and

6 Foundation Action January/February 2006 Retribution Barrows continued from page 2 continued from page 3

Under the Foundation-won U.S. them. But it is much more fun to give Supreme Court decision Chicago it to you guys than to give it to the gov- For more information on Teachers Union v. Hudson, before ernment!” planned giving, please collecting any forced dues, union The Barrows focus the majority of contact Elisa Sumanski at officials must first provide an audited their giving on three organizations; disclosure of the union’s finances to the Environmental Learning Center (800) 336-3600, or email ensure that forced union dues seized and Harbor Branch Oceanographic [email protected]. from objecting nonunion public Institution are their other two favorites. employees do not fund union activities Their interest in oceanographic and who enrolls in the Legacy Society this unrelated to collective bargaining. environmental research goes hand in first year will be given the distinction of Later, Lipsius filed related hand with a shared love of boating. being a “charter member.” Members are Focusing their giving allows Bill and unfair practice charges against the entitled to exclusive updates on Carol to make a bigger difference to union with the New Jersey Public Foundation happenings, invitations to their chosen charities, and develop per- Employment Relations Commission special Right to Work events, and a sonal relationships with the people run- (PERC) for unlawfully charging him as growing number of special privileges. ning them. a nonmember for political and other “The Right to Work Foundation and “These are the favorites for us. We’ve non-collective bargaining activities. all of its staff are deeply thankful for all gotten to know all the folks at each of the Barrows and other members of the these places, and it’s much more fun Legacy Society are doing to ensure that that way,” Bill acknowledged. the battle will go forward,” said When asked if there was anything Foundation president Mark Mix. “It’s else they wanted to share with other Newsclips Requested especially touching when donors think Right to Work supporters, Bill finished so much of our work that they include by saying, “We are at a historically The Foundation asks the Foundation in their estate plans. Bill supporters to keep their important point in the Right to Work and Carol are special folks, as are all movement, and so Carol and I want to scissors sharp for those who have committed to the financial encourage other donors to find ways to security of the Foundation’s work.” clipping news items support the Foundation’s work. We per- exposing the role sonally challenge them to consider a bequest or charitable gift annuity, or to union officials play in set up a trust like we did. Or to at least disruptive strikes, consider making their next gift to the outrageous lobbying, and Foundation the largest one yet. Like Carol was saying earlier, make the gift of political campaigning. a lifetime.” Please clip any stories that appear in your local paper Legacy Society recognizes and mail them to: planned givers Foundation Vice President Stefan NRTWLDF Bill and Carol, as charter members of Gleason appeared nationally on Fox the National Right to Work Foundation News Channel in January to reveal Attention: Newsclip Appeal Legacy Society, are currently joined by some of the far-out political causes 8001 Braddock Road over 50 other supporters that have that NEA union officials support with tens of millions of dollars in already informed the Foundation of Springfield, VA 22160 teachers’ forced dues. bequests and other planned gifts. The number continues to grow; everyone

January/February 2006 Foundation Action 7 Raketeering suit opens new front against coercive organizing continued from cover unionization. Often employees report to have the company’s having been browbeaten at home and at help in coercing thou- work by union agents until they signed sands of workers into the cards. Moreover, aside from fre- union ranks and obtaining quent misrepresentations by union upwards of $1 million in organizers regarding the purpose of annual dues revenues,” these “authorization cards,” many said National Right to employees have found that it was nearly Work Foundation Vice impossible to revoke their previously President Stefan Gleason. signed cards. “It takes tremendous courage for workers to North and South Carolina television stations ran several stand up to pressure from Workers sue union and news stories about the workers’ suit against UAW union bosses' illegal deal with Freightliner. both their employer and company under federal the union brass, and the racketeering law of compulsory unionism in the National Right to Work Foundation is American auto industry. Plaintiffs proud to stand with them.” The Foundation-assisted lawsuit, Timothy Cochrane and Katherine Ivey, filed in the U.S. District Court for the who both work at Freightliner’s Worker faces retaliation for Western District of North Carolina Gastonia facility, joined Foundation under the Racketeer Influenced and Vice President Stefan Gleason and staff questioning union privileges attorney Bill Messenger to brief members Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), of the media. alleges a pattern of violations of long- Less than a week after the suit’s filing, Before satellite cameras, Cochrane standing federal law that bars employers there was another reminder of the from delivering “things of value” to summed up the lawsuit in a statement type of intimidation workers face every unions. The class-action racketeering he gave to the press: “There is something day under these sweetheart deals. suit lists four counts of RICO violations very wrong about a union that betrays Foundation attorneys helped RICO regarding the enforcement of these corrupt the workers it is supposed to represent. plaintiff Kristi Jones file separate NLRB arrangements against the employees at UAW officials made a secret deal with charges against the UAW and certain Freightliner facilities. our employer to get the power to represent Freightliner for retaliating against her While the RICO statutes are better us after we already said no to the UAW. for refusing to toe the line. They then used that power to give away known for being used to prosecute Jones had been suspended, demoted, our wage increases and benefits.” gangs and organized crime, more and stripped of her leadership position The employees seek financial restitu- recently Foundation attorneys assisted simply because she questioned whether tion for all affected employees at the workers in Arizona in filing a RICO union shop stewards, who had already Mount Holly, Gastonia, and Cleveland, lawsuit to stop repeated corruption by been receiving preferential treatment union officials. North Carolina facilities in the form of treble damages for all dues seized and from Freightliner management, would earnings lost as a result of the unlawful be subject to a new work rule that Workers announce suit on pact. The Freightliner-UAW secret deal applied to other workers. UAW’s doorstep also sold out the workers’ rights at “I would like my team leader status Freightliner plants in High Point, North reinstated, and I want the company and the union to know they can’t push us In a symbolic gesture to show that Carolina and Gaffney, South Carolina. the workers would no longer be intimi- Foundation attorneys have given free around,” Jones told her local newspaper. dated by the notoriously violent UAW legal assistance to employees at both The NLRB will now investigate Jones’ union, the employees announced their facilities to fight against the UAW’s corrupt charges and decide whether to issue a racketeering lawsuit outside the union’s backroom dealings. formal complaint and prosecute the national headquarters in economically “UAW officials sold out the very company and union for additional devastated Detroit, Michigan—the hub workers they sought to represent in order unfair labor practices.

8 Foundation Action January/February 2006 Gallo wine Message from Mark Mix continued from page 4 UFW notorious for violating workers’ rights President These events are only the latest in a National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation line of ham-fisted tactics employed by UFW union bosses to stifle workers’ dissent. In December 2003, Foundation Dear Foundation Supporter: attorneys persuaded the general counsel Union bosses have rarely shied away from trampling workers’ rights, of California’s ALRB to issue a com- but our cover story in this issue shows just how far they are willing to go plaint against the UFW union for to corral workers into dues-paying union ranks. unlawfully ordering and causing the mass firings of more than 100 Oxnard Employees at the Freightliner plant in Gastonia, North Carolina, like Coastal Berry employees in 2001. so many other workers across the country, voted in a secret ballot not to In May 2000, by order of an ALRB have the United Auto Workers (UAW) union represent them. But the packed with three one-day appoint- UAW's chiefs in Detroit refused to accept the outcome. ments by Governor Gray Davis, UFW union officials were granted monopoly So the UAW’s top brass began to negotiate with the company to find bargaining power over the employees of out what it would take to get the company's help in recruiting union members. a large number of California firms What could the union offer the company? —even though most of the employees A secret agreement uncovered by Foundation attorneys revealed that did not support the union. Demands UAW officials agreed to sell out the workers at the bargaining table if the that employees join the union and company aided their organizing efforts. pay dues shortly followed. Foundation attorneys were able to win a $105,000 That quid pro quo deal involved promises to slow wage increases and to settlement against the UFW union in cut other employee benefits—negotiated despite the fact that the union July of 2004 on behalf of the disenfran- had not gained the support of the employees. The employees have now chised Coastal Berry employees. filed a racketeering suit with the Foundation's help.

But the intimidation continues. After the UAW had been installed at several plants, one worker asked the simple question of whether a new work rule would also apply to union shop stewards—who had already Free Newsletter been getting special treatment. That earned her a suspension and a demotion.

If you know others who I am proud to have Foundation attorneys aiding these courageous workers, and you as a Foundation supporter should also be proud. No would appreciate receiving other organization has the talent and commitment to help these heroic workers fight for their rights in the face of such unseemly collusion. Foundation Action, Thanks again for making our work possible. please provide us with their Respectfully, names and addresses. They’ll begin receiving

issues within weeks. Mark Mix