High-court ruling may set stage for more antiunion battles
Justices uphold a state law that limits unions' use of nonmembers' dues.
from the June 15, 2007 edition
Page 3 of 3
"Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of non-member employees," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. "The principal reason the Supreme Court of Washington concluded that [the law] was unconstitutional was that it believed that our agency-fee cases, having balanced the constitutional rights of unions and non-members, dictated that a non-member must shoulder the burden of objecting before a union can be barred from spending his fees."
But that was the wrong balance to strike in the Washington State case, Justice Scalia said. In earlier cases, the US Supreme Court had established that a worker's dissent was not to be presumed. The high court had ruled that a dissenting employee must make his objection known to the union.
Scalia said this created a perceived constitutional balance that was misconstrued. The earlier decisions of the US Supreme Court established a minimum set of procedures. States such as Washington are free to enact more rigorous regulations, he said.
"The mere fact that Washington required more than the … minimum does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny," Scalia wrote. "The constitutional floor for unions' collection and spending of agency fees is not also a constitutional ceiling for state-imposed restrictions."
The decision continues: "The Supreme Court of Washington read far too much into our admonition that 'dissent is not to be presumed.' We meant only that it would be improper for a court to enjoin the expenditure of the agency fees of all employees, including those who had not objected, when the statutory or constitutional limitations established in those cases could be satisfied by a narrower remedy."
The decision comes in two consolidated cases, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (No. 05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (No. 05-1657).
RSS feed
