Sunday, November 21, 1999
Employee fights compulsory dues
Worker objects to paying for politicking
BY BEN L. KAUFMAN
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Robert J. Mohat has been waiting for justice most of the 1990s.
“Extremely ticked” at delays, the Rossmoyne resident faces another year before his complaint against his union can be resolved.
Mr. Mohat began battling forced support for union partisan lobbying and politicking nine years ago.
“Whether it was a dime or 90 percent of my dues, I didn't want to pay for it,” the independent, fundamentalist Baptist and political conservative said in a recent interview.
He has no problem with dues for collective bargaining and related expenses “that I am receiving benefits for,” but Mr. Mohat objected to paying for union support of “pro-choice and pro-gay rights” candidates. “I would consider myself way to the right on most things.”
Until recently, his was one of the oldest undecided cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C.
However, faced with an imminent court order to rule on his challenge, NLRB gave him a split decision that is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.
“The board was mindful of the (court) action,” spokesman Dave Parker conceded.
Asked for rebate
Mr. Mohat, 45, a silk-screen printer/press operator, joined Polymark Corp. of Woodlawn in 1986.
Told he had no choice, he joined the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried Machine and Furniture Workers and authorized Polymark to deduct and forward monthly dues to Local 795.
The total was $16.54 then; it's $23.35 now.
However, in August 1990, he learned about the Supreme Court's Communication Workers vs. Beck decision limiting union power to collect dues for “nonrepresentational activities” from objecting nonmembers covered by a union shop contract.
“The first thing I did was ask what our dues were going for,” Mr. Mohat said.
A month later, having received no information, he asked for a rebate of four years of dues used for political action.
Rebuffed, he contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Explaining that its 1988 Beck victory protected only nonmembers, the Foundation told him to quit the union and revoke the payroll deduction for dues.
That way, he would owe only his share of the collective bargaining costs.
In November 1990, he resigned from the union and told Polymark to stop collecting his monthly union dues.
Firm refused request
The union said nonmembers could request dues reductions only during April of any year. Polymark refused to honor Mr. Mohat's request. It would collect and hold the dues until Mr. Mohat and Local 795 resolved their differences.
In December, 1990, W. James Young, a Right to Work Foundation attorney, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB regional office in Cincinnati against Polymark, the international union and Local 795.
In December 1991, NLRB staff attorney Carol L. Shore took up the case before Administrative Law Judge Karl H. Buschmann. In September 1992 he ruled generally in favor of Mr. Mohat:
• Polymark wrongly withheld all of Mr. Mohat's dues after he resigned from the union and revoked his authorization for payroll deduction of dues.
• The international and local unions should have honored his resignation and request to withhold dues used only for collective bargaining.
However, Judge Buschmann accepted the union security clause — requiring Polymark workers to join Local 795 — as well as Polymark's admonition that formal union membership was a condition of employment.
Mr. Mohat and the union appealed to the five-member NLRB in Washington in October 1992.
There it sat for six years and 11 months with similar cases where indecision favored the unions, according to Right to Work Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason.
NLRB spokesman Parker rejected the accusation of partisanship, saying the delay reflected court uncertainties about applying the Beck decision and unfortunate, indefensible delays within the board.
“There is no excuse that could justify this length of time,” Mr. Park er added. Today, Beck decisions move faster because “this area of law is becoming a little more settled.”
In the past seven years, however, Polymark co-workers exacerbated anxieties of delay, Mr. Mohat said. Some shunned him, saying they feared losing their jobs. Others “would look at you dirty ... and treat you like the plague.”
On the other hand, “the company has been fairly good,” Mr. Mohat said, and he's experienced no retaliation. Polymark president at the time, Dale Vollmer, “shook my hand after the trial. He said he wasn't looking for a fight.” Meanwhile, Polymark has put Mr. Mohat's dues in an escrow account, the current president, Steven Blackwell, said, and takes no position in the dispute. “We (are) just the custodian of the money. ... Someday, someone will tell us to send it somewhere.”
On Sept. 1, the NLRB issued four opinions from five members.
The majority decision reduced Mr. Mohat's victory to a single finding by Judge Buschmann: Local 795 should have honored Mr. Mohat's resignation within a reasonable time and withheld dues only for collective bargaining.
Further, NLRB said Local 795 could not limit dues protests under Beck to one month, and must rewrite its policies. Further, Mr. Mohat is owed an accounting and refund on the protested portion of dues since he invoked Beck at the start of the decade.
Union clause valid
Then the NLRB majority sided with the union and Polymark:
• The union security clause in the Polymark contract was valid even though it failed to tell workers that less than full membership would suffice as a condition of employment.
• It was OK when Local 795 and Polymark initially failed to tell Mr. Mohat that he had to pay union dues only for collective bargaining.
• Polymark could withhold Mr. Mohat's full dues after he quit the union and revoked the checkoff authorization. It was up to Local 795 to tell Polymark to reduce his checkoff.
Mike Brown not the villain in this farce
UC forges friendship with Cuba
City income tax challenged
DNA indicates female assailant in murder case
Lump of coal for the court
Art community abuzz about Big Pig Gig
How to submit a pig design
Little city makes big impression
Where willl the doctors go?
Airline profiles called biased
Chabot's grip on voters stronger than politics
Jail debate rages at meeting
Pay boosts for teachers, school boards proposed
Warrant Amnesty Day draws 15 people
Partial list of Kenton Co. warrants
Emeril is Elvis of food
GET TO IT
Last of 'Sarah' trilogy great TV literature
Right to a new life
Weight loss pointed out shallowness
Childhood should not be a college prep course
Locals catch raves in mags
Arts advocates need to learn art of politics
Board doing homework on levy request
Child safety seats essential
Employee fights compulsory dues
Fish story ends happily for psychologist
Mission's founder brings new vision to health care
More called to fight fire after arsonist hits
New era to arrive in Senate
Poll: Ohioans support death penalty
School not liable in rape of retarded student
Taft sees court role in school funding
TRISTATE DIGEST
Wife killed, husband hurt in crash
