Court considers special union fees

Listen to this article

By Kimberly Atkins
Dolan Newswires

BOSTON — The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appear poised to issue a split decision in a case considering what notice non-union state workers must receive before being assessed a special fee that will pay for political efforts. But a preliminary issue might keep the court from reaching the merits of the case.

The case of Knox v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000 involves California state employees who, as a condition of employment, must either join the union or pay the union an “agency fee” for its representation on their behalf. Each year, pursuant to the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, the union sends out a notice to all members explaining how the agency fee budget will be used. Non-union members may object to portions of the agency fee being used for non-chargeable expenditures — meaning expenditures for things other than the union’s representational function — and only pay the chargeable portion of the agency fee.

In 2005, the union assessed a special fee to respond to anti-union petitions in the upcoming state election. The union sent a letter to employees informing them of the special fee and the fee was collected from them.

Non-union members sued the union, claiming the special assessment violated their First, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employees and awarded them damages of $1 apiece.

A divided 9th Circuit reversed, holding that the union satisfied the Hudson requirement with its notice to employees before the fee was taken.

The employees sought and were granted a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three months later, the union sent all non-union members who objected to the fee a letter informing them that their fees would be refunded. Each letter contained a $1 bill, representing the damages that were awarded by the district court. The union then petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot, since the district court’s ordered relief had been granted. The court agreed to consider the mootness issue with the merits of the case.

At oral arguments last week, William Young, staff attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Springfield, Va., who represented the employees, was peppered with questions on the mootness issue right out of the gate, giving a strong indication that the Court might not get to the merits.

“This case is about a completed episode,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that the money was refunded and the dollar bills had been mailed.

“It is also about the effect of that judgment for future activities, and how that will affect the way SEIU operates,” Young said.

A decision is expected before the term concludes this summer.