CWA v. Beck - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 9
About This Presentation
Title:

CWA v. Beck

Description:

... a union over the objections of dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend ... Courts have jurisdiction over DFR and First amendment claims ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:61
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: oste9
Learn more at: https://www.msu.edu
Category:
Tags: cwa | beck | expend

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CWA v. Beck


1
CWA v. Beck
  • Issue
  • Today we must decide whether (Section 8(a)(3))
    permits a union over the objections of
    dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend funds
    so collected on activities unrelated to
    collective bargaining, contract administration,
    or grievance adjustment, and, if so, whether such
    expenditures violate the union's duty of fair
    representation or the objecting employees' First
    Amendment rights

2
Procedural/Jurisdictional Issues
  • Board preemption of 8(a)(3) charge under Garmon
    not applicable here where
  • Courts have jurisdiction over DFR and First
    amendment claims
  • Union has based its defense on these claims on
    8(a)(3)

3
Section 8(a)(3)
  • Authorizes union shop provisions requiring
    membership in the union as a condition of
    employment
  • Membership is financial core
  • Only payments (dues and fees) required
  • not allegiance

4
Funds Collected Under Union Shop Provisions
  • Same as RLA (Street case)
  • Limited to collective bargaining, etc.
  • May not be used for political purposes, social
    purposes, etc.
  • Rationale for union shop authorization is free
    rider problem
  • Anything unrelated to free rider outside of
    permissible scope of union shop under 8(a)(3)

5
  • Eleventh. Union security agreements check-off
  • . . . any carrier or carriers as defined in this
    chapter and a labor organization or labor
    organizations duly designated and authorized to
    represent employees in accordance with the
    requirements of this chapter shall be
    permitted(a) to make agreements, requiring, as a
    condition of continued employment, that within
    sixty days following the beginning of such
    employment, or the effective date of such
    agreements, whichever is the later, all employees
    shall become members of the labor organization
    representing their craft or class Provided, That
    no such agreement shall require such condition of
    employment with respect to employees to whom
    membership is not available upon the same terms
    and conditions as are generally applicable to any
    other member or with respect to employees to whom
    membership was denied or terminated for any
    reason other than the failure of the employee to
    tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and as
    assessments (not including fines and penalties)
    uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or
    retaining membership.

6
Holding in Beck (Brennan w/Rehnquist, While,
Marshall, Stevens)
  • We conclude that 8(a)(3), like its statutory
    equivalent, 2, Eleventh of the RLA, authorizes
    the exaction of only those fees and dues
    necessary to performing the duties of an
    exclusive representative of the employees in
    dealing with the employer on labor-management
    issues.
  • What is incorporated in the definition of duties
    of an exclusive representative of the employees
    in dealing with the employer on labor-management
    issues?

7
What is a Collective Bargaining Expense?
  • Organizing expenses may be included in collective
    bargaining expenses (UFCW Local 1036 v. NLRB, CA
    9, 2002, Docket No. 99-71317)
  • Deference to Board decision and expertise on
    industrial relations matters
  • organizing done in same competitive market
  • TCE of nonunion competitors employees germane to
    unionized ees.

8
Can Notification of Beck Rights Be Required by
Exec. Order?
  • A presidential executive order dated April 18,
    2001 which requires federal contractors to post a
    notice informing employees of their right to
    refuse to pay dues and fees greater than those
    necessary for bargaining is enjoined
    (UAW-Employment and Training Corp v. Chao,
    January 2, 2002, D.C. D.C., Civ. Action
    01cv00950)
  • Inconsistent with, and preempted by, NLRA

9
Dissent (with partial concurrence) Blackmun w/
OConnor, Scalia
  • Nothing in statute or legislative history that
    suggests that Congress attempting to limit how
    dues collected through a union shop could be
    expended
  • Congress concerned only about
  • closed shop
  • Arbitrary and discriminatory denials of
    membership in the union
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com