Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Janus v. AFSCME (United States Supreme Court)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts: Illinois' Public Labor Relations Act authorizes exclusive representatives to enter into agency fee agreements with the State of Illinois that require employees, as a condition of their employment, 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" to that particular union.

The State of Illinois is party to agency fee agreements with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME") and the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Local Union No. 916 ("Teamsters"), such that employees represented by these unions are forced to pay compulsory agency fees.  As a result, Mark Janus ("Janus") works for the Illinois Department of Health and Family Services and is forced to send part of his paycheck to AFSCME for agency fees.  In addition, Brian Trygg ("Trygg") works for the Illinois Department of Transportation and is forced to send part of his paycheck to the Teamsters for agency fees. 

The District Court dismissed the claims, in part on grounds that Abood v. Detroit Board of Education found these agency fees to be constitutional.  A three judge panel from the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Issue:  Can public sector unions force non-members to pay agency fees to union officials, by way of deductions from an employee's paycheck, in order to keep their jobs?

Current Status:  This past March, the Seventh Circuit upheld forced union dues and fees based upon the Supreme Court's 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.  Last week, attorneys for the plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court and asked that the Court consider hearing this case during the 2017 - 2018 term.

Looking Ahead:  Readers might recall that the Supreme Court deadlocked with a 4 - 4 decision on a similar issue last year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.  At the time, the Supreme Court only had eight Justices on the bench after Justice Scalia's death and the lack of a new Judge having been appointed when Friedrichs was heard.  It is widely expected the Court will agree to hear Janus, now that the Court has nine Justices.  Should the Court agree to hear the case and given that we are still rather far out from oral hearings (let alone the Court issuing its decision), it would not surprise me if the Court ultimately decides in favor of Janus and Trygg and holds that public sector unions cannot charge agency fees to non-members.  With the recent appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch by President Donald Trump, many observers (myself included) expect some of these labor cases such as Janus to be decided against labor unions.

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