Unpacking the Supreme Court's Janus Decision
The United States Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee Council 31 on June 27, 2018. The five to four majority held that requiring public-sector employees who are not union members to pay union agency fees violates the First Amendment. In the final paragraphs of the majority opinion, the Court made it clear that in the context of a public sector employer-union relationship, non-member employees in the bargaining unit must provide express consent before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks. Janus' implications for public employers are wide-ranging. However, the immediate question that unionized public-sector employers must address is how to administer existing agency fee provisions in collective bargaining agreements and distinguish between union members and non-members, whose express consent is now required before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks. It is important to note that this decision is grounded in constitutional principles and only applies to public sector unionized employees.
Janus involved an Illinois state employee, Mark Janus, who objected to the collective bargaining position of AFSCME Local 31. The union represents approximately 35,000 public employees in Illinois, including workers in Janus’s unit. Janus did not believe the union’s bargaining position reflected his personal interests or the interests of the people of Illinois. He consequently refused to join AFSCME Local 31 and objected to paying the monthly agency fee.
Public employee unions enjoy the exclusive right to represent workers in a designated bargaining unit. They are also obligated to represent all employees within the bargaining unit during collective bargaining negotiations, contract administration and grievance/arbitration matters, regardless of whether the employee is a member of the union. In exchange, public employees pay a monthly "agency fee" to the union for representing them. Prior to Janus, the union could use fair share fees only to fund union activities that benefitted non-members, such as collective bargaining. However, the funds could not be used for activities such as expressing political views and supporting political candidates. Janus addressed the conflict between an employee’s First Amendment rights and the collectively bargained obligation requiring the employee to pay agency fees. At the heart of the dispute in Janus is the often hazy line between a union’s public policy advocacy, its political speech and other political activities on the one hand, and its obligation to represent the bargaining unit members in collective bargaining, grievance matters and contract administration on the other. The fact that collective bargaining initiatives often implicate the public policy and political activities of a union placed the issue of payment by non-consenting employees squarely before the Court.
The Supreme Court majority concluded that unions significantly impinge on the First Amendment rights of non-member, public employees when they are required by a collective bargaining agreement to provide financial support for a union that may take positions during collective bargaining which have powerful political and civic implications. Many of the topics of bargaining under the Illinois Public Relations Act (“IPRA”) have policy implications, such as merit pay, the size of the workforce, layoffs, privatization, promotion methods and non-discrimination policies. In addition, AFSCME Local 31 has taken strong positions in favor of preserving public employee pensions, which Janus viewed as a financial burden on the State of Illinois and a significant contributor to State deficits. AFSCME Local 31 also has advocated for an increase in the State income tax, and even a graduated income tax based upon ability to pay. The Court noted that the positions taken and advocated by AFSCME Local 31 clearly cross over into important political discourse. Despite the fact that these topics are matters related to terms and conditions of employment, and therefore within the traditional realm of union bargaining, the Court ruled that individual employees who object to the political content of a union’s speech and bargaining and lobbying positions should not be obligated to subsidize it in any way.
The Court noted that AFSCME Local 31’s offered justification for the agency fee provision failed to withstand strict scrutiny analysis, and even failed to survive what is known as the Pickering balancing framework in which the Court attempts to reconcile an employee’s speech rights with a person’s public responsibilities as an employee. The Court found the Pickering analytical framework inappropriate in the context of this case. Pickering was designed to determine whether a public employee’s speech interferes with the effect of operation of the government office, not when, as in this case, government compels speech or speech subsidies in support of the speech of a third party, such as a union.
What should a public employer do with an existing contractual commitment to make agency fee deductions? The Court is very clear on this point and stated that public sector unions cannot extract agency fees from non-consenting employees. Clear and unambiguous consent is required.
From whom does a union and an employer need consent to deduct union dues and what level of evidence must exist to demonstrate that consent? Public employers can assume that employees who are and remain members in a public employee union may continue to have dues deducted without the necessity of a further clarifying consent. However, neither an agency fee, nor any other payment, may be deducted from a non-member’s wages unless the employee “affirmatively consents to pay.” The employee's consent must be shown by “clear and compelling evidence,” according to the Court. Therefore, public employers must have a process in place to differentiate clearly between members and non-members of a public employee union and to document the existence of consent for non-members. At this time, it appears that actual membership in the union may be deemed an appropriate consent to payment of union dues if the parties have collectively bargained for a dues check-off provision. Under such a provision, the employer withholds union dues from an employee’s compensation much like an employer withholds for taxes and insurance contributions. On the other hand, non-members must clearly provide consent before deductions can be made. At this time, nothing short of a signed consent would be appropriate.
Ultimately, public employer must immediately determine who is a member and who is currently an agency fee payer, and written consent likely will be required from each member of the latter group. Many collective bargaining agreements contain mechanisms under which the employer and union cooperate to periodically identify which employees fall into the two categories. If the collective bargaining agreement is silent on the process, employers should consider implementing such mechanisms, perhaps through an interim agreement with the union or through more formal consensual mid-term bargaining, on how to handle the ongoing dues payment obligation for those members who resign. Those mechanisms need to be accelerated and addressed immediately in the aftermath of Janus. Employers also should anticipate that there might be employees who will resign their membership in a union to avoid paying dues. For further information, contact Tom Luetkemeyer or Sunghee Sohn.
Topics
- #MeToo
- 100% Healed Policy
- 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 17200
- 1st Amendment
- 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
- 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act
- 2018 Withholding Tables
- 24-Hour Shifts
- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 42 U.S.C. s. 1981
- 42 U.S.C. ยง 12203(b)
- 42 USC 1983
- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 62 USC 623
- 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- A.A.R.P. vs. U.S. E.E.O.C.
- AB 1008
- ACA
- Accommodation
- accomodate
- ADA
- ADA Interference
- ADAAA
- ADEA
- Administration
- Administrative Exemption
- Administrative Warrant
- Adverse Employment Action
- Affirmative Action
- Affordable Care Act
- Age Discrimination
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Age-Based Harassment
- Agreements
- AHCA
- Aiding and Abetting
- Ambulance Attendant
- AMD
- American Health Care Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Amusement Parks
- Annual Summary
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Anti-Harassment Policy
- Anti-Retaliation Rule
- Anxiety
- Arbitration
- Arrest Record
- At-Will Employment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney General Guidance
- Audit
- Automobile Sales Exemption
- Back Pay
- Background Checks
- Ban the Box
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- Bargaining
- Belmont CA Minimum Wage
- Benefits
- Bereavement
- Biometric Information
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Black Lives Matter
- Board of Directors
- Borello Test
- Breastfeeding
- Browning-Ferris
- Burden of Proof
- Burden Shifting
- CAFA
- California
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
- California Employment
- California Fair Employment and Housing Act
- California Family Rights Act
- California Labor Code
- California Labor Code s. 226.2
- California Labor Code s. 230.1
- California Labor Code Section 1197.5
- California Legislature
- California Minimum Wage
- California Senate Bill 826
- California Supreme Court
- Caps
- Case Updates
- Cat's Paw
- CFAA
- Chicago Minimum Wage
- Child Labor Laws
- Childbirth
- Choice of Law
- Church Plans
- Circuit Split
- City of Los Angeles CA Minimum Wage
- Civil Rights
- Claim for Compensation
- Class Action
- Class Action Waiver
- Class Certification
- Class Waiver
- Code of Conduct
- Collective Action
- Collective Bargaining
- Collective Bargaining Agreements
- common law
- Commuting Time
- Comparable Work
- Compensable Time
- Compensation History
- Complaints
- Compliance Audit
- Computer Exemption
- Confidential Information
- Confidentiality Agreement
- Constructive Discharge
- Consular Report of Birth Abroad
- Contraception Services
- Contraceptive
- Conviction Record
- Convincing Mosaic
- Cook County
- Cook County Minimum Wage
- Corporate Board
- Corporations
- Criminal Conviction
- Criminal History
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- DACA
- Damages
- Deaf
- Defamation
- Defendant Trade Secrets Act of 2016
- Delaware
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Economic Opportunity
- Department of Labor
- Department of Workforce Development
- Designation Notice
- Direct and Immediate
- Disability
- Disability & Medical Leave
- Disability Discrimination
- Disability-Based Harassment
- Discrimination
- Discrimination and Harassment
- Disparaging
- Disparate Impact
- Disparate Treatment
- Diversity
- Diversity Policy
- Documentation
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- DOL
- Domestic Violence
- DOT
- Drug Free Workplace Act
- Drug Free Workplace Policies
- Drug Testing
- Dues
- DWD
- E-Verify
- EAP Exemption
- Eavesdropping
- Education
- EEO Laws
- EEO-1
- EEOC
- El Cerrito CA Minimum Wage
- Election
- Electronic Communication Policy
- Electronic Communications
- Electronic Reporting
- Eleventh Circuit
- Emeryville CA Minimum Wage
- Emotional Distress
- Employee
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employer
- Employer Health Care Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employer Policies
- Employer Policy
- Employer Sponsored
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Employment
- Employment Contract
- Employment Verification
- Enterprise Coverage
- EPA
- Epic Systems v. Lewis
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Equal Pay Act
- Equal Pay for Equal Work
- Equal Protection
- Equality
- ERISA
- ERISA section 4(b)(2)
- Essential Employment Terms
- Essential Functions
- Estoppel
- Ethnic Equality
- Evidentiary Burdens
- Exclusive Remedy
- Executive Exemption
- Executive Order
- Exempt Employee
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- Exhaustion of Remedies
- Experience
- Expert
- Expression of Milk
- Extreme or Outrageous
- FAA
- Failure to Accomodate
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Fair Pay
- Fair Reading
- Fair Workweek Law
- Fair Workweek laws
- Fairfax Memo
- Family Medical Leave Act
- family planning
- Fast Food
- FCRA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Contracts
- Federal Government
- Federal Register
- FEHA
- fertility
- FICA
- Fiduciary
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fiduciary Rule
- Fifth Circuit
- Final Rule
- Fines
- fingerprints
- First Amendment
- Fitness-For-Duty
- Florida
- Florida Civil Rights Act
- FLSA
- FLSA Exemptions
- Flu Shot
- FMCSA
- FMLA
- FMLA Interference
- Form 300A
- Forum-Selection Clause
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Franchisee
- Franchisor
- Fraud
- Freedom of Speech
- Full-time hours
- garden leave clause
- Gay Rights
- Gender Bias
- Gender Discrimination
- Gender Equality
- Gender Identity
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Gender Identity-Based Harassment
- Gender Nonconformity
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
- Georgia
- Gig Economy
- Gig Worker
- GINA
- Goods vs. Materials
- Grocers
- Gross
- H-1B
- Handicap Discrimination
- Harassment
- Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act
- Health Care
- Health Insurance
- HHS
- Highly Compensated Employees
- HIPAA
- Hiring
- Hiring Policy
- Hiring Practices
- HIV
- Hostile Work Environment
- Hour Tracking
- Hours Worked
- HR
- Human Trafficking
- Hybrand
- I-9
- IDHR
- Illinois
- Illinois Department of Human Rights
- Illinois Human Rights Act
- Illinois Minimum Wage Law
- Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act
- Illinois One Day Off In Seven Act
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Immigration
- Incentives
- inclusion
- Income Tax
- Independent Contractor v. Employee
- Independent Contractors
- informed consent
- Injuctive Relief
- Injunction
- Injuries
- Injury and Illness Reporting
- Interactive Process
- Interference
- Internal Applicants
- Internal Complaints
- Internal Revenue Service
- Interns
- Internships
- Investigation
- Iraq
- Iris Scans
- IRS
- IRS Notice 1036
- ISERRA
- Jefferson Standard
- Job Applicant
- Job Classification
- Job Classification Audit
- Job Descriptions
- Joint Control
- Joint Employers
- Joint Employment
- Judicial Estoppel
- Klever v. Carefusion
- LAB s. 226.2
- Labor
- Labor Code
- Labor Dispute
- Labor Organizing
- Las Vegas
- lateral transfer
- Layoff
- Leased Employee
- Leave
- Ledbetter Act
- Legislation
- Lesbian Rights
- LGBTQ
- LGBTQ Rights
- LMRA
- Los Angeles County CA Minimum Wage
- Loss of Consortium
- M.G.L. Chapter 151B
- major life activity
- Malibu CA Minimum Wage
- Mandatory
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Manufacturers
- Marijuana
- Marital Discrimination
- Maryland Minimum Wage
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Equal Pay Act
- Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Massachusetts Wage Act
- Maternity Leave
- McDonnell Douglas
- Meal & Rest Break
- Meal Breaks
- Meal Period
- Media Mention
- Medical Condition
- Medical Examination
- Medical History
- Medical Marijuana
- MEPA
- MHRA
- Michigan
- Military
- Military Duty
- Milpitas CA Minimum Wage
- Minimum Wage
- Ministerial Exception
- Minneapolis Minimum Wage
- Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time ordinance
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Minnesota Human Rights Act
- Minor Employees
- Minors
- Misappropriation
- Misclassification
- Missouri
- Montgomery County Maryland Minimum Wage
- Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido
- MSHA
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Narrow Construction
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Origin Discrimination
- Nebraska
- Negligence
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act
- New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
- New Moms
- New York
- New York Average Weekly Wage
- New York City
- New York City Human Rights Law
- New York Labor Law
- New York Paid Family Leave
- New York State Human Rights Law
- News
- NJ Paid Sick Leave Law
- NJDOL
- NJLAD
- NLRA
- NLRB
- Non-Compete
- non-competition agreement
- non-supervisory employees
- nonproductive time
- Notice
- Nursing Mothers
- NY State Department of Taxation
- NYSHRL
- Obama Administration
- ObamaCare
- Objectively Offensive
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- OFCCP
- Off-Duty Rest
- Off-the-Clock
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Older Workers
- On-Call Scheduling
- Only When Rule
- Opinion
- Opinion Letter
- Opposition
- Oregon Minimum Wage
- OSHA
- Other-than-Serious Violation
- Outside Applicants
- Outside Sales Exemption
- Overtime
- OWBPA
- PAGA
- Paid Leave
- Paid Sick Leave Law
- Paid Sick Time
- Paid Time Off
- Parental Leave
- part-time hours
- Partnership
- Pasadena CA Minimum Wage
- Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Pay Equity
- Pay Gap
- Pay History
- Pay Inquiries
- Payroll
- Payroll Taxes
- PDA
- Penalties
- Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
- Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
- Pension
- Pension Plans
- Perceived Disability
- Permanent Replacement Employees
- Personnel Record
- PFL
- Picket
- Piece-rate
- Policies
- Policy
- Political Affiliation
- Polygraph
- Portland Maine Minimum Wage
- Posting Requirements
- Preemption
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Pregnant Worker Protections
- Premium Wage
- President Obama
- Pretext
- Preventative Care
- Privacy
- Private Employers
- Professional Exemption
- Protected Activity
- Protected Class
- Protected Concerted Activity
- Protected Speech
- PTO
- PTSD
- Public Employers
- Public Records
- Publicly-Held Corporations
- Punitive Damages
- qualified individual
- Quid Pro Quo
- Race Discrimination
- Racial Discrimination
- Racial Equality
- Racial Harassment
- Reasonable Accomodation
- Recess Appointment
- Reduction in Force
- Regarded As
- Rehabilitation Act
- Religion
- Religious Discrimination
- Religiously Affiliated Employers
- Removal
- Reporting
- Reporting Time Pay
- Republican
- Request for Information
- Respondeat Superior
- Rest Breaks
- Rest Period
- Restaurants
- Restrictions
- Retail
- Retaliation
- Retina Scans
- Rhode Island
- RICO
- RIF
- Right to Control
- Right to Work
- Right-to-Sue
- Rounding Policy
- Safety Programs
- Salary History
- Salary Inquiries
- Salary Inquiry
- Salary Test
- Salespersons
- San Francisco CA Minimum Wage
- San Francisco Parity in Pay Ordinance
- San Leandro CA Minimum Wage
- Sanctions
- Santa Monica CA Minimum Wage
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- SB 1300
- SB 1343
- SB 826
- SCA
- SCOTUS
- Seasonal Workers
- SEC
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary Solis
- Section 7
- Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
- Section 8
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Fraud
- Self Evaluations
- Seperation
- Serious Health Condition
- Serious Violation
- Settlement Agreement
- Seventh Circuit
- Severance
- Severe and Pervasive
- Sex Discrimination
- Sex Stereotyping
- Sex-Based Harassment
- sexual and reproductive health decisions
- Sexual Assault
- Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation-Based Harassment
- Shameless
- Sick Leave
- Similarly Situated
- Social Media
- Social Media Policy
- Social Security
- South Dakota
- SOX
- Split Shift Pay
- SSA
- St. Paul Sick and Safe Time Ordinance
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Stalking
- Standing
- State Government
- State of Nevada v. US Department of Labor
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Exemption
- STD prevention
- Stock
- Street Trade Permits
- strike
- Student Loans
- Students
- Subjectively Offensive
- Subpoena
- Substantial Relationship
- Supervisor
- Supervisors
- Supplemental Wages
- Supreme Court
- Tax
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tax Implications
- Tax Reform Act
- Teenage Labor
- Temporary Employee
- Temporary Help Agency
- Temporary Schedule Change
- Temporary workers
- Termination
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit
- Time Clock
- Time Records
- Tipped workers
- Title IX
- Title VII
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Title VII Retaliation; Faragher/Ellerth
- Tort Liability
- Trade Secrets
- Training
- Trans
- Transgender Rights
- Transitioning
- Transportation Industry
- Travel Time
- Trial
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- UCL
- Undocumented Workers
- Undue Hardship
- Unemployment
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Union
- Union Dues
- Union Organizing
- United States Supreme Court
- Unlawful Employment Practice
- Unpaid Leave
- Unpaid Wages
- USCIS
- USERRA
- Vacation Accrual
- Vacation Pay
- Vacation Policy
- Vaccination
- Vaccine Requirement
- VEBA
- Verdict
- Vested Rights
- Vicarious Liability
- Virginia
- Voluntary
- Volunteers
- Wage and Hour
- Wage Order 7
- Wage Order 9
- Wages
- Waiting Period
- WARN
- Webinar
- Wellness
- Wellness Program Incentives
- Wellness Programs
- WFEA
- Whistleblower
- White House
- Willful and Repeat
- Wis. Stat. ch. 102
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals
- Wisconsin Fair Employment Act
- Withholdings
- Witness Statements
- Work Permits
- Work Restriction
- Work Schedules
- Workers Compensation
- Workplace Bullying
- Workplace Discrimination
- Workplace Injury
- Workplace Injury Reporting
- Workplace Policies
- Workplace Rules
- written release procedures
- Wrongful Termination
- Zarda v. Altitude Express