On October 1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to a review a decision that found home health care workers to be employees of the State of Illinois and that the State's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with those workers could therefore require non-union employees to pay a "fair share" fee to cover certain collective bargaining and union activity costs.
In Harris v. Quinn, two groups of non-union health care
workers sought relief from a provision of the CBA negotiated
between the State and a health care worker union requiring
"all Personal Assistants who are not members of the Union . .
. to pay their proportionate share of the costs of the collective
bargaining process, contract administration and pursuing matters
affecting wages, hours and other conditions of employment."
The plaintiffs argued that, since they were not union members, the
fair share agreement violated the First Amendment by compelling
their association with, and speech through, the union.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld
the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, relying on the
long-standing Supreme Court determination that employees may be
compelled to support legitimate, non-ideological union activities
related to collective-bargaining representation. The
plaintiffs' principal argument against this position was that
they were employees of their patients, not the State. The Seventh
Circuit disagreed, noting that the plaintiffs may be employees of
both the State and their patients. The Seventh Circuit further
found that the State had significant control over the plaintiffs
because it set qualification standards, evaluated patients'
choice of hiring, could refuse payment for sub-standard services,
approved a mandatory service plan governing the terms and
conditions of employment, and controlled all of the economic
aspects of employment.
Finding that the fair share agreement in the Harris case
could survive a First Amendment challenge, the Seventh Circuit
emphasized the narrow reach of its decision, stating, "We hold
simply that the State may compel the personal assistants, as
employees – not contractors, health care providers,
or citizens – to financially support a single
representative's exclusive collective bargaining
representation."
The Seventh Circuit also upheld the dismissal of a group of
plaintiffs that were not presently subject to a collective
bargaining agreement on the grounds that their claims were not yet
ripe for review.
Over the objections of the State, the union, and the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for review.
Originally published on the Employer's Law Blog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
