Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFLSCME Council 31 that public employees who choose to not join the union cannot be compelled to pay "fair share" fees (or "agency fees") to the union. This decision affects nonmembers of every school district certified bargaining unit.
Before today's decision, Minnesota law provided that public employees who declined full union membership were required to pay a "fair share" fee (M.S. 179A.06, Subd. 3). This fee was intended to cover the costs of negotiating and enforcing union contracts, but not the costs associated with the union's political activity.
The Court determined that compulsory payment of fair share fees violates public employees' First Amendment right to not be compelled to support political positions that the employees do not hold. Required payment of fair share fees, the Court ruled, is unconstitutional compelled speech. The Court rejected two justifications -- labor peace and a "free rider problem" -- that had been relied upon in the past to warrant collection of fair share fees.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP DEDUCTING FAIR SHARE FEES: Neither fair share fees nor any other union payment may be deducted from a nonmember's wages without the employee's freely given, affirmative, and clear consent, the Court stated. This ruling directly affects Minnesota public schools, which must immediately stop deducting fair share fees as part of their payroll process. The Court's decision does not impact collection of union dues from union members.
If fair share fees have been deducted from a nonmember's compensation, but not yet sent to the exclusive representative, the funds should be placed into escrow at this time.
GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS AND REPRESENTATION: Turning to representation of nonmembers in grievance proceedings, the Supreme Court stated that grievance representation benefits all members, not just the individual nonmember who is the subject of the proceeding. With this said, the Court wrote that, in "the representation of nonmembers in disciplinary matters ... [I]ndividual members could be required to pay for that service or could be denied union representation altogether." MSBA will provide additional guidance as the implications of this language become clear.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE: The Janus ruling states that public sector unions must provide fair representation to all employees within their bargaining units. States may require that public-sector unions serve as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for all employees in the unit. As the exclusive representative, the Court ruled, the union must represent all employees in the unit, whether they pay union dues or not. The union cannot negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmembers and, similarly, school districts may not adopt a collective-bargaining agreement that discriminates against nonmembers.
Under Minnesota's Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), all teachers in a school district are part of the "appropriate unit" for collective bargaining (M.S. 179A.03, Subd. 2). The "exclusive representative" is the union that meets and negotiates with public employers on behalf of "all employees in the appropriate unit" (M.S. 179A.03, Subd. 8). This means, in effect, that the local teachers union represents all teachers in the school district.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING MASTER AGREEMENTS SHOULD REMOVE FAIR SHARE LANGUAGE: School districts currently engaged in master agreement negotiations should ensure that fair share provisions are removed from the agreement.
MSBA is working closely with school districts, superintendents, and other education organizations to understand the Janus ruling and its ramifications. Additional guidance will be provided as the situation evolves.
In the meantime, if you have questions about the Janus decision, please contact Amy Fullenkamp-Taylor, MSBA Director of Management Services, at [email protected].
Comments