Public Sector Unions Take a Hit in Recent Supreme Court Decision

by LeClairRyan
Contact

The United States Supreme Court recently held in Harris v. Quinn that the First Amendment protects certain "quasi-public" employees from being forced to pay fees to a public sector labor union that they don't support. While the decision isn't fatal blow to public sector unions, it is certainly a setback -- and more legal challenges are in the wings.

Background
The state of Illinois runs a program under which Medicaid recipients who would otherwise need to be in a healthcare facility can instead hire health care workers to help care for them at home. These workers, called "personal assistants" (PAs), are directly hired by the individuals who need care. Although the actual employment relationship is controlled by the Medicaid recipients, PAs are paid by the state, and are considered public employees under Illinois’ Public Labor Relations Act (PLRA), which governs collective bargaining agreements.

Illinois PAs are represented by a labor union that entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the state. The agreement contains a so-called "fair share" clause, under which PAs who choose not to join the union still have to pay union fees.

The constitutionality of "fair share" clauses is grounded in a Supreme Court decision dating back to 1977, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that state employees who opt not to join public sector unions can be compelled to pay fees to support union work related to collective bargaining. Today, fair share provisions are included in many public sector collective bargaining agreements. They exist primarily to eliminate the problem of free riders: employees who don’t pay union fees, but still reap the benefits of representation by a union that negotiates for better working conditions on behalf of all employees, regardless of union membership status.

In Illinois, the union fees collected by the PA's union are used for a variety of activities, including political activity. And therein lies the free speech rub: some PAs may choose not to join the union because the union supports politicians or causes with which the PAs disagree. If those PAs are forced to pay union fees, it unconstitutionally forces them to support speech that runs counter to their own beliefs. That, at least, was the argument made in Harris v. Quinn by a group of PAs who filed a class action lawsuit to prevent enforcement of the "fair share" fee provision against them. The argument was rejected by the two lower courts that heard the case, but when appealed to the Supreme Court, a five-Justice majority agreed with the PAs that the fair share clause was unconstitutional.

What the Supreme Court Said
The Supreme Court focused its constitutional analysis on the precedent established by Abood, under which non-union public employees can be forced to pay union fees without violating the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito expressed skepticism about the validity of the analysis underpinning Abood, and crafted a new standard that divides public employees into two categories: "full-fledged" public employees (to whom the Abood decision applies), and "partial public" or "quasi-public" employees (to whom Abood does not apply). Applying this new categorization to the Illinois PAs, the Court concluded that PAs are "quasi-public" employees because they are public employees solely for the purpose of collective bargaining; because the State doesn't control most aspects of the employment relationship between the individual home health care recipients and PAs; and because PAs aren't entitled to most of the benefits enjoyed by other "full-fledged" Illinois state employees.

The Court further held that the Illinois PLRA’s "fair share" fees provision violated the First Amendment because the public interests furthered by the provision were insufficient to overcome the PAs’ "right not to be forced to contribute to the union, with which they broadly disagree." Justice Alito noted that the Court's decision aligned with "the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support."

Analysis and Takeaways
The Supreme Court's Harris v. Quinn opinion was released on the same day as the controversial Hobby Lobby decision on mandatory contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act. From a media standpoint, Harris was largely overlooked amid the Hobby Lobby press deluge. But Harris may just turn out to be the sleeper case of this Supreme Court term.

For starters, the Harris decision represents an important loss for the union movement generally, and for public sector unions in particular. Public sector unions spend millions of dollars every year on political activity. Limiting the Abood fair share rule could weaken the financial power, and by extension the political influence, of public sector unions. In the longer run, especially if the rule is further limited in future court decisions, we could see a shift in the political balance of power.

Next, the constitutionality of fair share provisions in other public sector collective bargaining agreements is now in serious question. The Court's broad reasoning in Harris should prohibit the collection of fair share union fees from other "quasi-public" employees working in home health care as well as other fields where the employment relationship is largely controlled by private individuals. Indeed, lawsuits challenging fair share laws as applied to government-subsidized child care workers and public teachers are currently working their way through the courts.

As for "full-fledged" public employees, Abood remains good law, and fair share provisions in collective bargaining agreements are still constitutional as applied to them. That said, the Court took a very negative view of the 1977 case. It stopped short of overruling Abood entirely, but the majority called the decision an "anomaly" that had "questionable foundations." (The tenor of the Court's review suggests Abood may be short lived should another case reach its docket.)

Finally, some unions may try to rethink how they collect fees. The extent of the financial impact of Harris on public sector unions in Illinois and other states where home health care workers are represented by public sector unions -- such as California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington -- remains to be seen. But public sector unions raise a significant amount through member dues. In Illinois, for example, PAs pay their union more than $3.6 million in fees every year. It will be interesting to see if home health care and other public sector unions, can figure out a new model for collecting fees that addresses the free-rider problem without running afoul of the First Amendment.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© LeClairRyan | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

LeClairRyan
Contact
more
less

LeClairRyan on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!