upper waypoint
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Big Win for Unions as Supreme Court Deadlocks on Dues for Teachers

Big Win for Unions as Supreme Court Deadlocks on Dues for Teachers

Save ArticleSave Article
Failed to save article

Please try again

Update, 10:30 a.m.:
Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its 4-4 decision today on the Friedrichs v. CTA case, the group representing the plaintiffs announced it would file a petition for the case to be reheard once Justice Antonin Scalia's seat is filled. Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, told KQED his group wanted the Scalia vacancy filled "as soon as possible" without taking a position on whether the U.S. Senate should hold confirmation hearings on President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland.

"We believe that a justice appointed by either political party will come on the court with an open mind and hear the merits of our case, and that's all we really ask," Pell said. "Whether it's the current nominee or a nominee by the next elected president, is not something that we have an opinion. We would just like to see the position filled by a qualified nominee."

Many would say organized labor dodged a bullet with today's decision that left the lower court ruling against the plaintiffs in place. But Steve Smith of the California Federation of Labor said he was "not surprised" by the decision, adding that his group was pleased the Supreme Court "has put this issue to rest" by "upholding 40 years of precedent."

"Rest" might be the right word, because the issue surely isn't dead.

Original Story:

Sponsored

WASHINGTON — A tie vote from the Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a win to labor unions in a high-profile dispute over their ability to collect fees.

The justices divided 4-4 in a case that considered whether public employees represented by a union can be required to pay "fair share" fees covering collective bargaining costs even if they are not members.

The split vote leaves in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the practice.

The result is an unlikely victory for organized labor after it seemed almost certain the high court would rule 5-4 to overturn a regime in place nearly 40 years. The court is operating with only eight justices after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who had been expected to rule against the unions.

The one-sentence opinion does not set a national precedent and does not identify how each justice voted. It simply upholds a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that applies to California and eight other Western states.

The union case is among a handful of high-profile disputes in which Scalia's vote was expected to tip the balance toward a result that favored the conservative justices.

Since Supreme Court decisions are not final until they are handed down, nothing Scalia did or said in connection with the case before his death mattered to the outcome.

A group of California teachers backed by a conservative group said being forced to pay union fees violated the free speech rights of nonmembers who disagree with the unions' positions. They had urged the justices to overturn a nearly 40-year-old Supreme Court decision that allows the unions to collect the fees.

The high court had raised doubts about the viability of the 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, but it stopped short of overturning it in two recent cases. In Abood, the court said public workers who choose not to join a union can be required to pay for bargaining costs if the fees don't go toward political purposes.

The lead plaintiff was Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher from Orange County, who said she resigned from the California Teachers Association over differences but was still required to pay about $650 a year to cover bargaining costs.

The case affects more than 5 million workers in 23 states and Washington, D.C., who are represented at the bargaining table by public sector unions. Labor officials worried the potential loss of tens of millions of dollars in fees would reduce their power to bargain for higher wages and benefits for government employees.

Labor leaders called the lawsuit part of a coordinated effort by conservative groups to weaken labor rights. Union officials say the fees are necessary because it has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union.

lower waypoint
next waypoint
Why California Environmentalists Are Divided Over Plan to Change Power Utility RatesWhy Renaming Oakland's Airport Is a Big DealCecil Williams, Legendary Pastor of Glide Church, Dies at 94Allegations of Prosecutorial Bias Spark Review of Death Penalty Convictions in Alameda CountyNurses Warn Patient Safety at Risk as AI Use Spreads in Health CareSF Democratic Party’s Support of Unlimited Housing Could Pressure Mayoral Candidates‘Sweeps Kill’: Bay Area Homeless Advocates Weigh in on Pivotal US Supreme Court CaseBay Area Indians Brace for India’s Pivotal 2024 Election: Here’s What to KnowSupreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Major Homelessness CaseCalifornia’s Future Educators Divided on How to Teach Reading