Skip to main content

Breaking: United States Supreme Court Issues Much Anticipated Ruling in Janus v. AFSCME


At the end of the Supreme Court's term, the Court has issued a decision today in one of the most anticipated (and potentially far reaching) labor law cases in recent memory.  For those needing a refresher, the Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME back in February in a case that addressed whether workers that do not join a public sector union can be forced to pay agency fees (a/k/a "fair share" fees) to cover the costs of having the union represent them during the collective bargaining process.  The law, as currently written (and challenged with this case), allowed unions to charge these agency fees even if workers did not join a union.  Needless to say, these agency fees had become a major point of contention among anti-union groups that criticized the compelled fees as a violation of the First Amendment.

During oral arguments a few months ago, some Justices echoed the "talking points" previously made in regard to agency fees and seemed to signal how they might rule in the case, with Justice Sonya Sotomayor suggesting that a ruling against requiring workers to pay agency fees could signal an end to unions (and therefore seemed to indicate she would rule against Janus) while Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that agency fees were actually compelled subsidization of a private party (and therefore amounted to a violation of the First Amendment).

As I predicted, today's ruling from the Court was close, with a 5 - 4 decision in favor of Janus and against forced agency fees in regard to public sector unions.  (For those wondering, Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion for the Court with Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch joining.  Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined the dissent).  Many readers are likely now wondering what the implications of this ruling mean for labor unions and workers going forward.  In short, the Court's ruling is monumental in so much that since agency fees are now eliminated, many workers will have fewer reasons to join a (public sector) union.  The Court's ruling allows non-union employees to remain non-union and still enjoy the benefits of union representation in the collective bargaining process without having to pay the union for the representation.  With union membership already in decline (with approximately only 10.7% of the U.S. workforce a part of a union), this decision is likely to mark another major strike against unions and their supporters.

One thing that I did find interesting in the majority opinion (and found in footnote 6), was the suggestion that unions could still be allowed to charge non-union employees for representing them in grievance proceedings.  The argument follows, therefore, that unions could refuse to represent these particular employee in these situations if the non-union employees did not pay for the representation.  If there is one bright spot for organized labor after paging through this lengthy opinion, this is probably it.

I suspect in the coming days and weeks, much will be written about the Court's decision and the far reaching impact the decision is likely to have.  In the interim, this decision is a major victory for pro-business and anti-union groups.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more