Category: Labor Law

Supreme Court Public Unions Janus

Supreme Court Rules Against Public Unions

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision affecting public sector unions. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31, the Court ruled that government employees cannot be required to support financially unions that represent them. This decision reverses precedent from a case the Supreme Court decided 41 years ago. Public unions will now face new challenges.

Public Unions as Exclusive Bargaining Representatives

Unionizing usually means employees select by majority support a single union to represent them in dealings with their employer regarding terms and conditions of employment. The union must represent every employee fairly. Even employees who do not support the union are subject to what the union negotiates on their behalf. Employees in represented units typically cannot deal directly with their employer on topics like wages and benefits.

Agency Fees

Not all states permit unions to represent government employees in negotiations and other dealings with their public employers. But those that do often allow unions and governmental employers to agree to deduct money from represented employees’ pay to fund the union.

In a 1977 case (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education), the Supreme Court addressed Constitutional challenges to such requirements. The Court acknowledged that forcing public employees to fund every nature of union activity would violate employees’ First Amendment rights. Specifically, public employers could not compel their employees, even through collective bargaining, to contribute to unions’ political activities and lobbying efforts. However, the Court allowed at that time that public unions and employers could agree to require all employees within a bargaining unit to contribute toward the costs of collective bargaining and grievance administration. Consequently, a public employee could refrain from joining the union and paying full union dues, but would still have to pay a portion of the dues known as an agency fee.

Twenty-eight states have “right-to-work” laws that give employees the choice of whether to support a union. The Supreme Court’s ruling essentially converts all states to right-to-work states for public employees.

Janus Decision

The Supreme Court has reversed its 1977 holding on agency fees. Five Justices agreed that requiring public employees to pay anything to a union violates the employees’ First Amendment free speech rights. Four Justices joined in a vigorous dissent.

The majority justified its reversal, in part, by observing that public sector unionism was a new phenomenon in 1977: “The first State to permit collective bargaining by government employees was Wisconsin in 1959, and public-sector union membership remained relatively low until a ‘spurt’ in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. . . .”

It also bluntly concluded that the 1977 case “was not well reasoned.”

The dissenters obviously disagreed. They contended that there are still sufficient government interests to justify this limitation on public employees’ free speech rights:

  • “First, exclusive representation arrangements benefit some government entities because they can facilitate stable labor relations.”
  • “Second, the government may be unable to avail itself of those benefits unless the single union has a secure source of funding.”
  • “And third, agency fees are often needed to ensure such stable funding. That is because without those fees, employees have every incentive to free ride on the union dues paid by others.”

The Justices in the majority rejected those points as inconsistent with current realities of the public-sector labor market. They noted, for example, that federal government employees do not have to pay agency fees to unions representing them; nonetheless, approximately 27% of the federal workforce are voluntary union members.

Impact on Public Unions

While allowing that public unions may retain their numbers despite this decision, the Janus majority acknowledges a potential adverse impact. But this risk, they find, does not trump the First Amendment:

“We recognize that the loss of payments from nonmembers may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members. But we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.”

The dissenters emphasize that 22 states have freely chosen to permit agency fees based on compelling public interests. These states, they assert, recognize stability in bargaining with a solvent employee representative. The dissenting opinion unabashedly slights the majority of states and the federal government that evidently disagree:

“Of course, not all public employers will share that view. Some would rather not bargain with an exclusive repre­sentative. Others would prefer that representative to be poorly funded—to serve more as a front than an effectual bargaining partner.”

There is no doubt that public unions have feared this day. Eliminating agency fees will not benefit them. Surely, some employees will opt not to support the unions that represent them. These employees may risk some loss of union benefits. The Supreme Court majority specifically suggests that employees who do not join the union “could be required to pay for [union representation in disciplinary matters] or could be denied union representation altogether.”

Impact on Public Employers

Most notably, public employers may no longer transfer any money from employees’ pay to a union without the employee’s authorization. Most employers will not need to change anything for union members who have signed dues authorization cards. But employers presumably must immediately stop deducting agency fees from any employees for whom they do not have such authorization.

Employees could perhaps still authorize only a portion of the full union dues consistent with the agency fee calculation, subject to union amenability. Employers faced with this situation should first review any potentially relevant collective bargaining agreement provisions. In some cases, negotiation or clarification with the union may be appropriate.

Many states that have historically permitted the mandatory agency fee deduction are considering or have passed new laws to protect public unions. Public employers should consult these and preexisting state laws to evaluate the full extent of their obligations under Janus.

Given the complexity and Constitutional complexion of this issue, government employers should strongly consider discussing their obligations with an experienced labor lawyer.

You can read review the Supreme Court’s full majority and dissenting opinions here.

NLRB Jurisdiction

NLRB Jurisdiction: Are We Covered?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent federal agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The purpose of the Act is “to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy”. The NLRB has broad jurisdiction over private sector employers, employees, and labor organizations. NLRB jurisdiction includes most non-government employers with sufficient activity in interstate commerce.

NLRB Employers and Employees

Employer

The NLRB’s definition of “employer” includes private employers and anyone acting directly or indirectly as an agent of an employer. It does not include the United States, government corporations, federal reserve banks, or those subject to the Railway Labor Act.

Employee

The NLRB’s definition of “employee” includes any employee of a covered employer, including any person whose work has been discontinued in connection with a labor dispute or unfair labor practice. It does not, however, include agricultural laborers, domestic service workers, independent contractors, or supervisors.

Jurisdictional Thresholds Vary by Industry

Despite the broad statutory definitions, the NLRB does not exercise jurisdiction over all private employers and employees. Instead, it considers whether a business performs sufficient volume to warrant coverage by the federal agency. The NLRB applies different coverage standards depending on the nature of the business.

Retailers

Retailers fall under NLRB jurisdiction if their gross annual volume of business is at least $500,000. For shopping centers and office buildings, the threshold is $100,000.

Non-retailers

The NLRB exercises jurisdiction over most non-retailers if their annual inflow or outflow or goods or services is at least $50,000 in gross annual volume. The inflows or outflows can be direct or indirect.

Transportation Industry

Businesses in the transportation industry must produce $50,000 in annual volume to be included in the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

Legal Organizations

Law firms and legal service organizations fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRB if their gross annual volume of business is at least $250,000.

Cultural and Educational Centers

The NLRB exercises jurisdiction over art museums, symphony orchestras, private colleges, private universities, and other private schools if their gross annual volume of business totals at least $1,000,000.

Health Care

Nursing homes and visiting nursing associations fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction if their gross annual volume of business is at least $50,000.

For hospitals, medical offices, social service organizations, and child care centers gross annual volume of business must be at least $250,000.

Native American Tribes

The NLRB has jurisdiction over commercial enterprises owned by Native American tribes, regardless of whether they are located on a reservation. However, the NLRB does not exercise jurisdiction over enterprises that perform traditional tribal or government functions.

Federal Contractors

Companies with federal government contracts fall under the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

Contentious Gray Areas

NLRB jurisdiction is not always straightforward. There are areas where the Board has wavered on whether it has or should exercise jurisdiction. For example:

  • Graduate students: In an August 2016 decision, the NLRB held that graduate students in private universities are employees and therefore can unionize under the NLRA. However, the NLRB has gone back and forth on whether graduate students are employees.
  • College athletes: On August 17, 2015, the NLRB unanimously agreed not to exercise jurisdiction to determine whether Northwestern football players are university employees under the NLRA. The Board members feared that a ruling these athletes employees would be problematic for the college sports industry.
  • Charter schools: In 2016, the NLRB held it has jurisdiction over New York and Pennsylvania charter schools because the schools are not political subdivisions of their states and therefore not exempt from the NLRA. However, in March of 2018, the NLRB declined to exercise jurisdiction over a Texas charter school because the NLRB found the school’s leadership was “responsible to state officials.”
  • Religious institutions: NLRB jurisdiction depends on whether the nature of the work is religious. For example, a religious school usually would not fall under NLRB jurisdiction, but a religious health care institution typically would.

Why NLRB Jurisdiction Matters

Employers should know whether their organization falls under NLRB jurisdiction. If it does, employers will be subject to certain restrictions and obligations under the NLRA. These include, but go beyond, not interfering with employees’ ability to engage in union activity. For more on how the NLRA can affect non-union workplaces, read New Rules for Employee Handbooks.

Employment Law Checkup

Quick Employment Law Checkup

If you have employees, you’re subject to an array of laws governing the workplace. Going from zero to even just one employee is a huge step. After that, the more employees you have, the more laws apply. And more employees and laws bring along increased risks of noncompliance. To tackle these issues, companies would ideally hire robust human resources departments and employment lawyers. But, that’s not practical for every business in every situation. So, in case you need somewhere to start, you can use this to conduct your own basic employment law checkup.

1. Are you paying workers enough?

I mean legally. Presumably, you’re paying them enough to work for you. And whether you pay enough to retain employees is another subject altogether. But I’m talking about minimum wage and overtime here.

With just one employee in the U.S., virtually all employers become subject to minimum wage and overtime laws. What laws apply to you and your employees? Are employees exempt from overtime? The exemptions are trickier than many understand, so double check this.

2. Are you paying payroll taxes?

For most employers, this is a no-brainer. Taxes are a way of life. But some employers try to avoid these obligations by either paying employees “under the table” or treating them as independent contractors. The first practice is simply illegal. The latter is more complicated.

Genuine independent contractors are responsible for their own taxes (and don’t have to receive minimum wage or overtime). But you can’t just avoid dealing with legal requirements by calling someone an independent contractor. The exact requirements vary, but generally, if a person is working only or primarily for you, they are probably your employee. Especially if they are performing tasks in line with your primary business. For example, a graphic designer “hired” for a one-off project creating a new company logo may be an independent contractor. But a graphic design company hiring the same person to create designs periodically for its customers looks more like an employment relationship.

3. Do you have an anti-harassment policy?

Various state and federal laws prohibit employment discrimination for all but the smallest employers. Even if you’re not subject to these laws, you can’t afford to tolerate workplace harassment. As a starting point, you should have a written anti-harassment policy that advises employees of prohibited behavior and provides a mechanism to report violations. Again, this is a bare minimum. So, after you institute or update your policy, consider providing training to employees. And, of course, take all complaints seriously and investigate promptly.

4. What do your personnel files look like?

If legal issues arise, the employee’s personnel file will come under scrutiny, so don’t be careless. Whether physical or electronic, you should have separate files for each employee. These should contain the “new hire” paperwork such as offer letters, I-9s, and tax withholding forms. They also include employee benefit documents, such as for insurance and retirement plans, if applicable. They would also include any formal disciplinary records. And if you receive medical information about an employee, that must go in a separate file.

5. How do you handle employee medical issues?

If you do have medical information, you’ve probably had to deal with employee medical issues. These can touch on a surprising number of employment laws. I regularly advise clients about single employee medical situations that potentially implicate 6-7 laws. For example, you may have to make reasonable accommodations to an employee with a disability. This might include time off, even if you don’t have a sick leave policy.

6. Will your employees go union?

Most employees have the right to join unions. As an employer, it’s not your choice. But that doesn’t mean your fate is sealed. Getting the above issues right, treating employees well, and listening to them will often keep unions out. But if your employees do unionize, then you’ll be playing by a new set of rules. You’ll have to negotiate with the union over many issues. You will enter the world of potential grievances and arbitrations. And employees will likely receive “just cause” job protection. Make sure you understand how this world works before you find yourself in it. (There are geographic and industry-based factors affecting the likelihood that your workforce will unionize, but it’s at least a possibility in nearly every company.)

Beyond this Employment Law Checkup

I’m only providing this quick employment law checkup as a starting point. I want employers to get these issues right. But that’s not always an easy task. Plus, there are many more employment laws beyond the subjects addressed here. The laws are complex. Often there are extensive regulations. Minor nuances can entirely change an employer’s responsibilities.

 

Keep up with our updates on employment law by subscribing to our email newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn.