ARTICLE
31 March 2016

Supreme Court Hands Labor Unions a Reprieve

SH
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Contributor
Schnader is a full-service law firm of 160 attorneys with offices in Pennsylvania, New York, California, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware and an affiliation with a law firm in Jakarta. We provide businesses, government entities, and nonprofit organizations throughout the world with innovative, practical, and cost-effective solutions to their business and litigation needs. We also provide wealth management and an array of personal legal services to individuals.
In the second split decision since the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court gave organized labor a status quo victory in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association on Tuesday.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the second split decision since the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court gave organized labor a status quo victory in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association on Tuesday.

The case was brought by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf of ten California public schoolteachers. At issue in the case is whether a system of "agency fees" for non-union teachers violates the First Amendment. California is one of many states where public employees who chose not to join unions must pay a "fair share service fee." The fees, also known as agency fees, are usually equivalent to union dues and help pay for collective bargaining activities. The theory behind the law is that non-union members profit from union activities, in the form of higher wages, better benefits, leave policies and grievance procedures.

The per curiam opinion, noting only that "judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," set no precedent, and the issue may be revisited by a full court in the future. For now, the decision leaves intact the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. In that case, the Court ruled that non-union members can be compelled to pay for a union's collective bargaining efforts, but not its political activities.

The case is likely to heat up the standoff between the Obama administration and Senate Republicans, who vowed to hold no hearings on any Supreme Court nominees until after the election.

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.

ARTICLE
31 March 2016

Supreme Court Hands Labor Unions a Reprieve

United States Employment and HR
Contributor
Schnader is a full-service law firm of 160 attorneys with offices in Pennsylvania, New York, California, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware and an affiliation with a law firm in Jakarta. We provide businesses, government entities, and nonprofit organizations throughout the world with innovative, practical, and cost-effective solutions to their business and litigation needs. We also provide wealth management and an array of personal legal services to individuals.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More