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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more