Total Articles: 37
Ogletree Deakins • July 17, 2018
As of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, state laws requiring public sector collective bargaining agreements to contain agency shop clauses that compel the discharge of employees for refusing to provide financial support to unions are deemed to violate the First Amendment.
States and public-sector unions may no longer collect agency fees from non-union employees who object to paying them, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4. While the holding in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was overshadowed by Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement, it is a significant development that overturns more than 40 years of settled labor law.
FordHarrison LLP • July 02, 2018
Executive Summary: On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 struck down an Illinois law requiring public employees represented by a union to pay agency fees to the union even though the employee is a non-member, objects to positions taken by the union and has not consented to payment of the fee, holding the law “violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.” The Court’s decision overrules its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977).
Phelps Dunbar LLP • June 29, 2018
This morning the United States Supreme Court ruled, on a 5-4 vote, public-sector workers who are not union members cannot be forced to pay fees to unions that cover the cost of collective bargaining. This decision overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which stated “fair share” fees are constitutional. This decision will have a major impact on unions representing public-sector employees such as teachers and police.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • June 29, 2018
In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that "agency fee" laws in 22 states plus Washington, D.C. violate the First Amendment rights of public sector employees. Public sector employees who exercise their right not to join the union representing their bargaining unit can no longer be required to pay "agency fees" to that union to cover the costs of negotiating contracts, processing grievances, and representing unit members in disciplinary proceedings. The ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 could cripple powerful public sector unions financially and blunt their political influence if a significant number of employees elect to resign their union membership.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 28, 2018
Public sector employees who are non-members of a union cannot be legally required to pay agency or “fair share” fees as a condition of employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 ruling. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, No. 16-1466 (June 27, 2018). Janus reverses the Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, in which the Court found such mandatory fees to be constitutional.
Franczek Radelet P.C • June 27, 2018
As widely anticipated, the U.S. Supreme Court just held by a 5-4 vote that fair share agreements are unconstitutional. (Janus v. AFSCME). The decision is effective immediately and requires all public bodies to cease deductions from their fair share members.
Fisher Phillips • June 27, 2018
In a 5-4 decision on the final day of the 2017-2018 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the First Amendment prohibits public sector entities from collecting fees from non-union members. This decision is a significant blow to public sector labor organizations across the country, which rely on these fair share fee arrangements as a significant source of revenue.
Ogletree Deakins • June 27, 2018
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in a case that tested the constitutionality of requiring mandatory payment of “fair share” union dues to be paid by non-member public sector workers. The Court, with Justice Alito writing for a 5-4 majority, overruled the decades-old Abood v. Detroit Education Association case finding that it “was not well reasoned.” The Court ruled that a state law requiring public-sector union non-members to pay a fair share fee violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to Justice Alito, “public-sector agency-shop arrangements violate the First Amendment, and Abood erred in concluding otherwise.” Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, Supreme Court of the United States (June 27, 2018).
Ogletree Deakins • June 27, 2018
The decades-long battle over union security faces two important pivot points during the summer of 2018. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States handed unions a major defeat in the season’s first major fight. With its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, the Court prohibited union security in the public sector, even in the form of “fair share” fees aimed at representational expenses, as impermissible violations of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, in Missouri, an August vote could tip the national scales in favor of right-to-work legislation in the private sector.
Franczek Radelet P.C • April 10, 2018
As we previously reported, in July 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided to consider the legality of “fair share” fees for public employees. Fair share fees are those fees that are proportionate to the union’s costs associated with collective bargaining, contract administration, and other activities related to the union’s role as the collective bargaining representative. Public sector unions cannot use fair share fees toward their political activities, but objectors contend that political activity is inherently intertwined with public sector collective bargaining. Illinois and twenty other states currently have state laws that allow unions to collect fair share fees from public employees who choose to opt-out of union membership.
Ogletree Deakins • March 29, 2018
Employers often receive requests for medical information from the unions representing their employees. These requests come up in a variety of contexts and include:
XpertHR • February 28, 2018
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a closely watched case affecting millions of public employees and perhaps the future of organized labor. At stake in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is whether unions can compel nonmembers to pay dues for representing them in contract negotiations.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 26, 2017
Home health aides who successfully objected to the collection of “fair share” fees without their consent may not proceed as a class, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled, affirming a lower court’s determination. Riffey v. Rauner, No.16-3487 (7th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017).
Franczek Radelet P.C • October 03, 2017
As we previously reported, in July 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal of a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the legality of “fair share” fees for public employees. Fair share fees are fees that are proportionate to the union’s costs associated with collective bargaining, contract administration and other activities germane to the union’s duties as the collective bargaining representative. Public sector unions cannot use fair share fees toward their political activities.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 30, 2017
As expected, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) has reintroduced a bill targeting the National Labor Relations Board's decision in Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). The Representation Fairness Restoration Act (S.1217) would reinstate the pre-2011 standard for determining which employees belong in a particular bargaining unit. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) introduced a companion bill (H.R. 2629) in the House of Representatives.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 25, 2016
Labor unions today are “tech” savvy, using mobile app and other technology to grow and maintain their memberships.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 22, 2016
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Richard Griffin wants the Board to declare it unlawful for employers to withdraw recognition from an incumbent union without an NLRB election. See GC Memorandums GC 16-01 (Mar. 22, 2016) and GC-1603 (May 9, 2016). This would be a major change from current Board law articulated in Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001), which permits employers to unilaterally withdraw recognition from an incumbent union based upon “objective evidence” that the union has lost majority support (i.e., typically a petition signed by a majority of bargaining unit employees indicating that they no longer wish to be represented by their union). The General Counsel’s proposed change will not become law unless it is adopted by a majority of the Board.
Franczek Radelet P.C • March 31, 2016
As we previously reported, in July 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal of a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the legality of “fair share” fees for public employees. On March 29, 2016, an equally divided Supreme Court issued a one-sentence decision affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, thereby upholding the constitutionality of state laws that allow unions to charge public employees who choose to opt-out of union membership “fair share” fees.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • March 30, 2016
In a simple, one-sentence decision handed down on March 29, 2016, in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the U.S. Supreme Court preserved the ability of public employee unions across the country to collect fair share fees from non-union employees in their bargaining unit. The per curiam decision simply stated: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • January 12, 2016
On January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Frederichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that will decide whether public-sector employees can be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. The latest battle over the payment of union fees in the public sector arose from claims by some California teachers that state "agency shop" laws violate free speech and association rights under the First Amendment. California law requires teachers working in most of its public schools to financially contribute to the local teachers' union and that union's state and national affiliates to subsidize collective bargaining expenses. California law also requires public school teachers to subsidize expenditures unrelated to collective bargaining unless a teacher affirmatively objects and then renews his or her opposition in writing every year.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • September 08, 2015
On August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board, in Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB No. 188, overturned 53 years of precedent, holding that, like most other terms and conditions of employment, an employer’s obligation to check off union dues continues after expiration of a collective bargaining agreement that contains such a provision. The Board’s determination is not surprising in light of its 2012 decision in WKYC-TV1, which held similarly, but was overturned (on procedural grounds) by the U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 17, 2015
As we previously observed here, no cases that were invalidated by the United States Supreme Court in Noel Canning v. NLRB remain for the National Labor Relations Board to decide.
Franczek Radelet P.C • July 01, 2015
Yesterday, the United State Supreme Court granted certiorari in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and will consider whether public sector agency shop arrangements, also known as “fair share” contractual provisions, violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court also will consider whether “opt-out” provisions for fair share fees violate the First Amendment by forcing non-union member employees to object to payments related to union political activity. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which it held that state laws may require public sector employees to pay fees for the non-political work that public sector unions perform on their behalf, including collective bargaining. Under Abood, unions and the courts have defended such provisions as a means to permit unions to prevent non-union members from “free-riding” on the unions’ efforts to improve employment benefits without sharing the costs incurred. If the Supreme Court overturns Abood, it could strike a major financial blow to public sector unions across the country.
Franczek Radelet P.C • July 02, 2014
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued its anxiously anticipated decision in Harris v. Quinn, a case brought by Illinois home health aides challenging the requirement in a collective bargaining agreement that they pay their “fair share” of the cost of union representation. Although the State of Illinois and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (the parties that negotiated the collective bargaining agreement in question) had prevailed before the District Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, when this case made its way to the Supreme Court it became a vehicle for the potential overruling of long-standing Court precedent regarding “fair share” deductions first established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977). In Abood, the Court endorsed the proposition that a governmental entity may, consistent with the First Amendment, require public employees who exercise their option not to become members of a union to pay their “fair share” of the cost incurred by the union in representing them for purposes of collective bargaining.
Fisher Phillips • July 01, 2014
Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend its previous holdings regarding “fair-share” fees (fees that an employee who refuses to join a union is required to pay in lieu of union dues) to caretakers who are paid by the government to give home care to disabled individuals as part of a state program. According to the Court, in this setting, mandatory fair-share fees are unconstitutional. Harris v. Quinn.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 01, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to require Medicaid home health service personal assistants in Illinois to pay “agency fees” to a public-sector union certified to represent those employees in collective bargaining with the state. While technically a defeat for labor organizations, the high court stopped just short of overruling the 37-year-old precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which allows a state to require a non-member public employee to pay a fee for collective bargaining and related services to the union designated to represent this class of employees.
Ogletree Deakins • July 01, 2014
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a public-employee union from collecting an agency fee from home-care workers who do not want to join or support the union. According to the majority opinion, which Justice Alito wrote in a 5-to-4 decision, the Court’s holding reaffirmed “the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.” Harris v. Quinn, No. 11–681, Supreme Court of the United States (June 30, 2014).
Fisher Phillips • March 04, 2013
The National Labor Relations Board recently held that United Nurses and Allied Professionals (UNAP) did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by failing to provide an audit-verification letter to a non-member objector, Jeannette Geary, who opposed the UNAP charging her for lobbying expenses.
Franczek Radelet P.C • February 06, 2013
On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor issued its annual report on union membership. The report tracks statistics and trends for both union membership—defined as wage and salary workers who reported being members of a union—and union representation—defined as both union members and workers “who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union contract.” Across almost every industry and demographic, the statistics showed a decrease in both union membership and union representation as compared to 2011.
FordHarrison LLP • December 05, 2012
Executive Summary: Citing the Communications Decency Act, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge held that a union that maintained a Facebook page did not have a duty to disavow threatening comments posted by union members.
Franczek Radelet P.C • July 02, 2012
In a decision upholding the free speech rights of public employees represented by but not belonging to a union, the U.S. Supreme Court held last week that a public sector union must provide the requisite “Hudson notice” and receive affirmative consent from nonmembers prior to imposing a special assessment or other mid-year dues increase. Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1000.
Fisher Phillips • June 22, 2012
Today the U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to employees who choose not to join a union, but who are nevertheless required to pay a fee to the union. Unions are already required to provide a notice to such employees spelling out the specific uses the fees will be put to, and allowing the employee to opt out of paying some of them.
FordHarrison LLP • June 22, 2012
Calling the SEIU's "aggressive use of power to collect fees from nonmembers indefensible," the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has held that the union violated the First Amendment by not sending a new Hudson notice when it levied a special assessment to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the amount of the regular assessment was set.
Fisher Phillips • June 25, 2010
In the final labor and employment law decision for the 2009-10 term, on June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court held that a unionized employer may not pursue an action against an international union for inciting a local union to violate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court also held that it was a court's job (rather than an arbitrator's job) to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement with an arbitration clause was actually entered into.
Fisher Phillips • February 24, 2009
On February 24, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the state of Idaho, which has a right-to-work law generally permitting payroll deductions for union dues, to prohibit such deductions for union political activities. This decision underscores the rights of states to separate the operation of government from partisan politics, even in the context of local governments having public-union labor contracts with dues check-off provisions.
Fisher Phillips • May 04, 2007
On January 29th, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) announced it will be forming a national healthcare union, which they predict will be composed of nearly 1 million members by the end of this year.