Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.[1]
"Agency shop" clause whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues, was valid insofar as the service charges are used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes.
Abood was overturned in the 2018 case Janus v. AFSCME, which found that Abood had failed to properly assess the First Amendment principles in its decision.
Michigan law authorized agency shop agreements between public agencies and unions representing government workers. The Detroit Federation of Teachers was certified as the exclusive union for Detroit schoolteachers in 1967.[2] D. Louis Abood, a school teacher, who objected to union membership and to the union's endorsements of political candidates, sued in Michigan state court in 1969.[3]
Abood was represented by Michael A. Carvin, who asked the state court to rule against his clients so that he could appeal the case to the Supreme Court.[4][5]
Judgmentedit
The Court upheld collective bargaining fees on the basis of private sector precedents in Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson (1956) and International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street (1966).[1]
The restriction on union use of funds for non-collective-bargaining purposes was based on First Amendment protections regarding freedom of speech and association. The Court found,
[The] notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that, in a free society, one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience, rather than coerced by the State ... thus prohibit[s] the appellees from requiring any of the appellants to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job as a public school teacher ... the Constitution requires ... that such [political union] expenditures be financed from charges, dues, or assessments paid by employees who do not object to advancing those ideas and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment.[6]
Thus, in the United States' public sector, employees of the employer are entitled to not be members of the union, but they can be required to pay the documented costs of contract administration and negotiation. If they object, typically such a determination is submitted for hearing to a neutral arbitrator who will take evidence and render a final and binding decision as to the propriety of the fees assessed.[7][8]
Aftermathedit
Since Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2006, anti-union groups have looked to challenge the decision of Abood by arguing that the inherent activities of a public section union including political campaigning that make it difficult to separate the use of non-member dues.[9] The Court had prepared to rule on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n, No. 14-915, 578U.S. ___ (2016), which appeared to be ready to overturn Abood, but with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the case was closed on a deadlock 4–4 decision that left Abood in place.[9]
Abood was overruled in Janus v. AFSCME, No. 16-1466, 585U.S. ___ (2018), which ruled that public sector unions may not collect fees from non-members. In Janus, the 5–4 majority agreed that Abood had not properly considered the First Amendment principles, and was "wrongly decided".[9]
^Journal of collective negotiations in the public sector. Baywood Pub. Co. 1978. p. 214.
^Kaiser, Harry Mason (April 11, 2005). Economics of commodity promotion programs: lessons from California. Peter Lang. p. 49. ISBN978-0-8204-7271-3.
^Whitehouse, Sheldon (2017). Captured: the corporate infiltration of American democracy. Melanie Wachtell Stinnett. New York London: The New Press. ISBN978-1-62097-207-6.
^Liptak, Adam (July 6, 2015). "With Subtle Signals, Supreme Court Justices Request the Cases They Want to Hear". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 14, 2023.
^Gregory, David L. "Contesting Union-Imposed Fees: Must Arbitration Precede Litigation (97-428)". Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 1997–1998: 392. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
^Chicago Local Teachers Union v Hudson 475 U.S. 292. 310 (1986)
^ abcBravin, Jess (June 27, 2018). "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Public-Sector Unions". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 27, 2018.
External linksedit
Text of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431U.S. 209 (1977) is available from:CornellCourtListenerGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
abood, detroit, board, education, abood, redirects, here, swimmer, matthew, abood, cricket, umpire, gerard, abood, 1977, labor, case, where, united, states, supreme, court, upheld, maintaining, union, shop, public, workplace, public, school, teachers, detroit,. Abood redirects here For the swimmer see Matthew Abood For cricket umpire see Gerard Abood Abood v Detroit Board of Education 431 U S 209 1977 was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union In a unanimous decision the Court affirmed that the union shop legal in the private sector is also legal in the public sector They found that non members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of collective bargaining contract administration and grievance adjustment purposes while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes 1 Abood v Detroit Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued November 9 1976Decided May 23 1977Full case nameD Louis Abood v Detroit Board of EducationDocket no 75 1153Citations431 U S 209 more 97 S Ct 1782 52 L Ed 2d 261 1977 U S LEXIS 91ArgumentOral argumentOpinion announcementOpinion announcementCase historyPrior60 Mich App 92 230 N W 2d 322 1975 probable jurisdiction noted 425 U S 949 1976 SubsequentRehearing denied 433 U S 915 1977 Holding Agency shop clause whereby every employee represented by a union even though not a union member must pay to the union as a condition of employment a service charge equal in amount to union dues was valid insofar as the service charges are used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining contract administration and grievance adjustment purposes Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Potter StewartByron White Thurgood MarshallHarry Blackmun Lewis F Powell Jr William Rehnquist John P StevensCase opinionsMajorityStewart joined by Brennan White Marshall Rehnquist StevensConcurrenceRehnquistConcurrenceStevensConcurrencePowell in judgment joined by Burger BlackmunLaws appliedU S Const amend IOverruled byJanus v AFSCME 2018 Abood was overturned in the 2018 case Janus v AFSCME which found that Abood had failed to properly assess the First Amendment principles in its decision Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Aftermath 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksFacts editMichigan law authorized agency shop agreements between public agencies and unions representing government workers The Detroit Federation of Teachers was certified as the exclusive union for Detroit schoolteachers in 1967 2 D Louis Abood a school teacher who objected to union membership and to the union s endorsements of political candidates sued in Michigan state court in 1969 3 Abood was represented by Michael A Carvin who asked the state court to rule against his clients so that he could appeal the case to the Supreme Court 4 5 Judgment editThe Court upheld collective bargaining fees on the basis of private sector precedents in Railway Employees Dept v Hanson 1956 and International Ass n of Machinists v Street 1966 1 The restriction on union use of funds for non collective bargaining purposes was based on First Amendment protections regarding freedom of speech and association The Court found The notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will and that in a free society one s beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State thus prohibit s the appellees from requiring any of the appellants to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job as a public school teacher the Constitution requires that such political union expenditures be financed from charges dues or assessments paid by employees who do not object to advancing those ideas and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment 6 Thus in the United States public sector employees of the employer are entitled to not be members of the union but they can be required to pay the documented costs of contract administration and negotiation If they object typically such a determination is submitted for hearing to a neutral arbitrator who will take evidence and render a final and binding decision as to the propriety of the fees assessed 7 8 Aftermath editSince Justice Samuel Alito s confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2006 anti union groups have looked to challenge the decision of Abood by arguing that the inherent activities of a public section union including political campaigning that make it difficult to separate the use of non member dues 9 The Court had prepared to rule on Friedrichs v California Teachers Ass n No 14 915 578 U S 2016 which appeared to be ready to overturn Abood but with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia the case was closed on a deadlock 4 4 decision that left Abood in place 9 Abood was overruled in Janus v AFSCME No 16 1466 585 U S 2018 which ruled that public sector unions may not collect fees from non members In Janus the 5 4 majority agreed that Abood had not properly considered the First Amendment principles and was wrongly decided 9 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First AmendmentReferences edit a b Abood v Detroit Board of Education 431 U S 209 1977 nbsp This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States Journal of collective negotiations in the public sector Baywood Pub Co 1978 p 214 Kaiser Harry Mason April 11 2005 Economics of commodity promotion programs lessons from California Peter Lang p 49 ISBN 978 0 8204 7271 3 Whitehouse Sheldon 2017 Captured the corporate infiltration of American democracy Melanie Wachtell Stinnett New York London The New Press ISBN 978 1 62097 207 6 Liptak Adam July 6 2015 With Subtle Signals Supreme Court Justices Request the Cases They Want to Hear The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved July 14 2023 Abood 431 U S at 235 236 Gregory David L Contesting Union Imposed Fees Must Arbitration Precede Litigation 97 428 Preview U S Sup Ct Cas 1997 1998 392 Retrieved May 19 2016 Chicago Local Teachers Union v Hudson 475 U S 292 310 1986 a b c Bravin Jess June 27 2018 Supreme Court Deals Blow to Public Sector Unions The Wall Street Journal Retrieved June 27 2018 External links editText of Abood v Detroit Board of Education 431 U S 209 1977 is available from Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Portals nbsp Michigan nbsp Education nbsp Freedom of speech nbsp Law nbsp Organized labour nbsp United States Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Abood v Detroit Board of Education amp oldid 1175138138, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
