Got questions about membership? Click here for FAQs!

Promoting Quality Higher Education– An Investment in Oregon’s Future

NEWSLETTER, HIGHER ED FACULTY

Newest Supreme Court Threat to unions just filed

June 10, 2017 / Phil Lesch

On June 6, 2017, in a continuing attempt to undermine unions, the National Right to Work Committee filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to have agency fee ruled unconstitutional for public-sector employees in a case called Janus v. AFSCME Council 31

Agency fee has been deemed constitutional since the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Over the last forty years, the courts have repeatedly found that the agency fee system adequately balances the interests of the employees and the state in an efficient labor relations system and the First Amendment interests of union members and nonmembers. However, in a 2014 decision, Harris v. Quinn, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Abood was good law and virtually invited challenges to the constitutionality of agency fee. In this opinion, Alito claimed that all agency fee arrangements in the public sector could violate the First Amendment as they compel nonmembers to pay for activities that may address matters of public concern and are therefore “political.” Anti-union groups took up Justice Alito’s invitation and have pushed a number of cases through the courts.

Last year, the Supreme Court took up such a challenge in Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 194 L. Ed. 2d 255, 136 S. Ct. 1083, 84 U.S.L.W. 4159 (U.S. 2016). Many organizations filed briefs on both sides, and the National AAUP filed an amicus brief in support of the constitutionality of agency fees. While initially a majority of the Court seemed poised to find agency fee unconstitutional, the death of Justice Scalia left the Court equally divided, with four justices likely in favor of finding agency fee constitutional and four opposed. The Court issued a summary decision that did not address the substantive question. Unfortunately, recently appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch may side with the four conservative justices, and thus the Supreme Court could revisit the issue and could find agency fee unconstitutional, at least in the public sector.

There are a number of pending cases that could serve as the vehicle for the Court to address the issue. One case that may be such a vehicle is Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, a challenge to agency fee for Illinois public sector employees. On March 21, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the union based on Abood, noting that, “neither the district court nor this court can overrule Abood, and it is Abood that stands in the way of [Appellants] claim.” Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017).

On June 6, 2017, the plaintiffs in Janus filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Once a petition is filed, the Court must decide whether to grant the petition and thereby accept the case. If the petition is not granted, the lower court decision is final. If the petition is granted, then the Court sets a briefing and argument schedule. For cases on a normal schedule, the Court can take from several months to several years to issue a decision. In the Janus case, a decision on whether or not to accept the case will likely be made in the fall of 2017. In the event that the Supreme Court accepts Janus, or another case addressing this issue, the AAUP anticipates joining or filing an amicus brief in support of the current precedent that agency shop/fair share fees are constitutional.

If, as expected, the Supreme Court accepts the case, any decision holding agency fee unconstitutional would probably be issued by the time the Supreme Court term ends in late June 2018. If a decision is issued holding agency fees unconstitutional, it would likely be effective the day it is issued. There would probably be no waiting period or grandfathering of existing contracts, as there often is when there are legislative changes. Thus, agency fees could not be collected or retained as of the day the decision is issued, even if a collective bargaining agreement or state law is in effect.

This legal threat to union rights is part of a broader effort to weaken unions as effective representatives for working people. For an AAUP chapter, these efforts amount to a direct attack on the democratically elected voice of the faculty. The primary defense against the elimination of agency fee is to ensure that the chapter has a high percentage of members. Generally unions have found that when agency fee is eliminated they often do not lose members, but primarily lose the agency fees they collect from nonmembers. Thus, maximizing the percentage of eligible employees who are members of the chapter is essential. 

This is why your Executive Council has committed to constant organizing. Our new organizer, Jana Rygas, starts September 1 and a big part of her portfolio is helping a culture change amongst members to making non-membership unacceptable.

As we did in preparation for the Friedrich decision, PSU-AAUP will prepare for the decision by building a number of different scenario budgets for the PSU-AAUP FY 2018 budget. We have been preparing for the eventuality of this change for the last five years and have been increasing reserves to prepare for this transition. The Executive Council is committed to being strategic for any changes imposed on us by a negative Janus or similar decision.

You participation in your union is more important than ever. If you'd life to be part of the team to spearhead the upcoming organizing effort, please reach out to Jennifer Kerns, Vice President Membership and Organizing.

Blog Categories