Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
Encyclopedia
Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507
(1991) deals with First Amendment rights and Unions in public employment. Due to collective bargaining
laws in some states (in this case, Michigan
), employees in the public sector (in this case, a university) are often required to either join a union or pay a “service fee” to a union (in this case, the Ferris Faculty Association, Michigan Education Association, and National Education Association
) for the collective bargaining services. This case pertains to the usage and collection of union dues in the form of “service fees” from dissenting nonmember employees. The Plaintiffs argued that their required “services fees” are not going toward collective bargaining, but rather toward other union activities with which they disagree (such as political lobbying
), and thus the compulsory fees are a violation of their freedom of speech rights. The defendant union argued that their non-bargaining activities are “designed to influence the public employer's position at the bargaining table,” and therefore that they benefit the collective bargaining process. The court found that unions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent.
This case provides broad clarification on the subject of required union fees in the public sector. It strikes down a previously used “three part test” in favor of a more practical one part test. This new test dictates that: “a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop
only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” However, much leeway and uncertainty still exists regarding the acceptable use of union “service fees” in the public sector.
only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” These costs include:
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1991) deals with First Amendment rights and Unions in public employment. Due to collective bargaining
Collective bargaining
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions...
laws in some states (in this case, Michigan
Michigan
Michigan is a U.S. state located in the Great Lakes Region of the United States of America. The name Michigan is the French form of the Ojibwa word mishigamaa, meaning "large water" or "large lake"....
), employees in the public sector (in this case, a university) are often required to either join a union or pay a “service fee” to a union (in this case, the Ferris Faculty Association, Michigan Education Association, and National Education Association
National Education Association
The National Education Association is the largest professional organization and largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become...
) for the collective bargaining services. This case pertains to the usage and collection of union dues in the form of “service fees” from dissenting nonmember employees. The Plaintiffs argued that their required “services fees” are not going toward collective bargaining, but rather toward other union activities with which they disagree (such as political lobbying
Lobbying
Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by various people or groups, from private-sector individuals or corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or...
), and thus the compulsory fees are a violation of their freedom of speech rights. The defendant union argued that their non-bargaining activities are “designed to influence the public employer's position at the bargaining table,” and therefore that they benefit the collective bargaining process. The court found that unions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent.
Findings
The court found largely for the Plaintiff, but also continued to uphold the compulsory “service fee” itself and affirmed some of the questioned uses of the “service fee.” In general, freedom of speech rights are found to limit what “service fees” may be used for. The court ruled that the majority of the “service fees” collected in this case were used unconstitutionally. Also, the court now requires unions to provide an audited accounting report of their “service fee” spending to fee paying nonmembers.This case provides broad clarification on the subject of required union fees in the public sector. It strikes down a previously used “three part test” in favor of a more practical one part test. This new test dictates that: “a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop
Agency shop
An agency shop is a form of union security agreement where the employer may hire union or non-union workers, and employees need not join the union in order to remain employed. However, the non-union worker must pay a fee to cover collective bargaining costs...
only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” However, much leeway and uncertainty still exists regarding the acceptable use of union “service fees” in the public sector.
Allowed uses of union “service fees”
The court found that “a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shopAgency shop
An agency shop is a form of union security agreement where the employer may hire union or non-union workers, and employees need not join the union in order to remain employed. However, the non-union worker must pay a fee to cover collective bargaining costs...
only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” These costs include:
- Expenses directly related to the collective bargaining process.
- “Program expenditures” of the national union, even those destined for other states.
- Certain sections of the state union’s newsletter. These sections must deal directly with collective bargaining, professional development, education, unemployment, and other non-political topics which “benefit all.”
- Participation by the local delegates in the state and national conventions which are likely to have some benefit to collective bargaining.
- All expenses associated with preparation for, and negotiation of strikes.
Illegal uses of union “service fees”
The court also found that “certain other of the union activities at issue may not constitutionally be supported through objecting employees' funds.” These disallowed costs include:- Lobbying, electoral, or other union political activities outside the scope of contract negotiations, which “would compel dissenters to engage in core political speech with which they disagree.”
- Union activities which serve to secure state, local, or national funds for education and sections of the newsletter which report on these issues.
- Litigation which does not directly relate to the collective bargaining process and union literature which reports on this.
- Public relations efforts which seek to enhance the reputation of the teachingTeacherA teacher or schoolteacher is a person who provides education for pupils and students . The role of teacher is often formal and ongoing, carried out at a school or other place of formal education. In many countries, a person who wishes to become a teacher must first obtain specified professional...
professionProfessionA profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain....
and expenses related to information picketing, media exposure, signs, posters, and buttons.
Rationale
The following cases are cited in the judgment of this case:- Machinists v. StreetMachinists v. StreetMachinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.”...
, , states that "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent."
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, , upholds the constitutionality of compulsory "service fees" for collective bargaining services.
- Ellis v. Railway Clerks, , allows local unions to support their national affiliates through nonmembers "service fees" since they often provide support to the bargaining table in a variety of ways both direct and indirect. However, this case does not allow free spending by the unions but limits it somewhat.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 500
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
- Locke v. KarassLocke v. KarassLocke v. Karass, No. 07-610 , is a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Constitution permits the local chapter of a labor union to charge a "service fee" to non-members to cover non-local litigation expenses if the expenses are "appropriately related to...
, 555 U.S. ___, (2008)