Skip to main content

NLRB General Counsel Just Made It Easier For Nonmembers to Challenge Agency Fees


At the end of April, National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") General Counsel, Peter Robb, issued a memorandum in which he wrote that nonunion members that pay union dues will be able to more easily challenge the expenses required to be paid for the costs of collective bargaining and other nonpolitical activities.  (Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act allows employers and unions, in non right to work states, to enter into agreements that require union membership as a condition of employment.  These agreements allow unions to collect forced fees (a/k/a "agency fees") from all workers.  These agency fees are intended to prevent "free riders" from benefiting from the collective bargaining of the union without providing any financial support/compensation to the union itself.  However, certain union expenses have been found to not be chargeable to nonmembers, including the cost of lobbying, salaries, and benefits.)

The memorandum notes that going forward, workers that object to paying for particular union expenses do not have to explain why they should not have been charged nor require them to give the NLRB evidence or investigative leads to support their challenge; a change from prior NLRB General Counsels.  With prior NLRB General Counsels calling on workers to provide this information (as to their objection to particular union expenses), the burden was placed on workers to contest particular union expenses.  However, under this new guidance, the burden instead shifts to unions to provide evidence as to why a particular union expense charged to nonmembers is permitted by law.

This memorandum was predictably met with both applause and disdain.  Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, stated the burden shifting in regard to these union fees put the burden of proof back on the union officials "...where it belongs when it comes to justifying the amount of forced fees."  On the other side of the coin, the change in policy could lead to unions having to expend countless resources to rebut meritless challenges filed by nonmembers.  Regardless of where you stand on the matter, this is a favorable turn of events for those opposed to agency fees.


For a copy of General Counsel Robb's memorandum:  http://src.bna.com/HTW

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

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more