Due to collective bargaining laws in some states (in this case, Michigan), employees in the public sector (in this case Ferris State University) are often required to either join a union or pay a "service fee" to a union (in this case, the Ferris Faculty Association, Michigan Education Association, and National Education Association) for the collective bargaining services. This case pertains to the usage and collection of union dues in the form of "service fees" from dissenting nonmember employees. The Plaintiffs argued that their required "services fees" are not going toward collective bargaining, but rather toward other union activities with which they disagree (such as political lobbying), and thus the compulsory fees are a violation of their freedom of speech rights.[1] The defendant union argued that their non-bargaining activities are "designed to influence the public employer's position at the bargaining table," and therefore that they benefit the collective bargaining process.
Opinion of the Courtedit
In a majority opinion by Justice Blackmun, the Court found that unions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent. The Court found largely for the Plaintiff, but also continued to uphold the compulsory "service fee" itself and affirmed some of the questioned uses of the "service fee." In general, freedom of speech rights are found to limit what "service fees" may be used for. The Court ruled that the majority of the "service fees" collected in this case were used unconstitutionally. Also, the court now requires unions to provide an audited accounting report of their "service fee" spending to fee-paying nonmembers.
This case provides broad clarification on the subject of required union fees in the public sector. It strikes down a previously used three-part test in favor of a more practical one-part test. This new test dictates that: "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent." However, much leeway and uncertainty still exists regarding the acceptable use of union "service fees" in the public sector.
Allowed uses of union "service fees"edit
The court found that "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent." These costs include:
Expenses directly related to the collective bargaining process.
"Program expenditures" of the national union, even those destined for other states.
Certain sections of the state union’s newsletter. These sections must deal directly with collective bargaining, professional development, education, unemployment, and other non-political topics which "benefit all."
Participation by the local delegates in the state and national conventions which are likely to have some benefit to collective bargaining.
All expenses associated with preparation for, and negotiation of strikes.
Illegal uses of union "service fees"edit
The court also found that "certain other of the union activities at issue may not constitutionally be supported through objecting employees' funds." These disallowed costs include:
Lobbying, electoral, or other union political activities outside the scope of contract negotiations, which "would compel dissenters to engage in core political speech with which they disagree."
Union activities which serve to secure state, local, or national funds for education and sections of the newsletter which report on these issues.
Litigation which does not directly relate to the collective bargaining process and union literature which reports on this.
Public relations efforts which seek to enhance the reputation of the teachingprofession and expenses related to information picketing, media exposure, signs, posters, and buttons.
Rationaleedit
The following cases were cited in the majority opinion:
Machinists v. Street (1961), states that "a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union's statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent."
Ellis v. Railway Clerks (1984), allows local unions to support their national affiliates through nonmembers "service fees" since they often provide support to the bargaining table in a variety of ways both direct and indirect. However, this case does not allow free spending by the unions but limits it somewhat.
^ abLehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500U.S. 507 (1991).
External linksedit
Works related to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association at Wikisource
Text of Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500U.S. 507 (1991) is available from:CourtListenerGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOpenJuristOyez (oral argument audio)
December 15, 2023
lehnert, ferris, faculty, lehnert, ferris, faculty, association, 1991, deals, with, first, amendment, rights, unions, public, employment, lehnert, ferris, faculty, associationsupreme, court, united, statesargued, november, 1990decided, 1991full, case, namejame. Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association 500 U S 507 1991 deals with First Amendment rights and unions in public employment 1 Lehnert v Ferris Faculty AssociationSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued November 5 1990Decided May 30 1991Full case nameJames P Lehnert et al Petitioners v Ferris Faculty Association et al Citations500 U S 507 more 111 S Ct 1950 114 L Ed 2d 572 1991 U S LEXIS 3017 59 U S L W 4544 137 L R R M 2321 91 Cal Daily Op Service 3972 91 Daily Journal DAR 6313Case historyPrior556 F Supp 309 W D Mich 1982 643 F Supp 1306 W D Mich 1986 881 F 2d 1388 6th Cir 1989 893 F 2d 111 6th Cir 1989 HoldingUnions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White Thurgood MarshallHarry Blackmun John P StevensSandra Day O Connor Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterCase opinionsMajorityBlackmun parts I II III B III C IV B except final paragraph IV D IV E IV F joined by Rehnquist White Marshall StevensPluralityBlackmun parts III A IV A IV B final paragraph IV C V joined by Rehnquist White StevensConcur dissentMarshallConcur dissentScalia joined by O Connor Souter Kennedy all but part III C Concur dissentKennedyLaws appliedU S Const amend I Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 2 1 Allowed uses of union service fees 2 2 Illegal uses of union service fees 2 3 Rationale 3 See also 4 Notes 5 External linksBackground editDue to collective bargaining laws in some states in this case Michigan employees in the public sector in this case Ferris State University are often required to either join a union or pay a service fee to a union in this case the Ferris Faculty Association Michigan Education Association and National Education Association for the collective bargaining services This case pertains to the usage and collection of union dues in the form of service fees from dissenting nonmember employees The Plaintiffs argued that their required services fees are not going toward collective bargaining but rather toward other union activities with which they disagree such as political lobbying and thus the compulsory fees are a violation of their freedom of speech rights 1 The defendant union argued that their non bargaining activities are designed to influence the public employer s position at the bargaining table and therefore that they benefit the collective bargaining process Opinion of the Court editIn a majority opinion by Justice Blackmun the Court found that unions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent The Court found largely for the Plaintiff but also continued to uphold the compulsory service fee itself and affirmed some of the questioned uses of the service fee In general freedom of speech rights are found to limit what service fees may be used for The Court ruled that the majority of the service fees collected in this case were used unconstitutionally Also the court now requires unions to provide an audited accounting report of their service fee spending to fee paying nonmembers This case provides broad clarification on the subject of required union fees in the public sector It strikes down a previously used three part test in favor of a more practical one part test This new test dictates that a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union s statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent However much leeway and uncertainty still exists regarding the acceptable use of union service fees in the public sector Allowed uses of union service fees edit The court found that a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union s statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent These costs include Expenses directly related to the collective bargaining process Program expenditures of the national union even those destined for other states Certain sections of the state union s newsletter These sections must deal directly with collective bargaining professional development education unemployment and other non political topics which benefit all Participation by the local delegates in the state and national conventions which are likely to have some benefit to collective bargaining All expenses associated with preparation for and negotiation of strikes Illegal uses of union service fees edit The court also found that certain other of the union activities at issue may not constitutionally be supported through objecting employees funds These disallowed costs include Lobbying electoral or other union political activities outside the scope of contract negotiations which would compel dissenters to engage in core political speech with which they disagree Union activities which serve to secure state local or national funds for education and sections of the newsletter which report on these issues Litigation which does not directly relate to the collective bargaining process and union literature which reports on this Public relations efforts which seek to enhance the reputation of the teaching profession and expenses related to information picketing media exposure signs posters and buttons Rationale edit The following cases were cited in the majority opinion Machinists v Street 1961 states that a union may constitutionally compel contributions from dissenting nonmembers in an agency shop only for the costs of performing the union s statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent Abood v Detroit Board of Education 1977 upholds the constitutionality of compulsory service fees for collective bargaining services Ellis v Railway Clerks 1984 allows local unions to support their national affiliates through nonmembers service fees since they often provide support to the bargaining table in a variety of ways both direct and indirect However this case does not allow free spending by the unions but limits it somewhat See also editUS labor law List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 500 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court Locke v Karass 555 U S 207 2008 Notes edit a b Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Ass n 500 U S 507 1991 External links edit nbsp Works related to Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association at Wikisource Text of Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association 500 U S 507 1991 is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Ass 27n amp oldid 1175144977, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
