Union Station: April 2, 2021

April 2, 2021
![]() Tenth Circuit rules in favor of AFSCME in union dues caseOn March 26, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico’s decision in Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18. The lower court had dismissed the suit, which alleged that the union’s policy of restricting membership resignation to certain opt-out windows and New Mexico statutes granting unions exclusive representation on matters of public policy violated the First Amendment. Parties to the suitThe plaintiff was Brett Hendrickson, a quality control specialist employed by the New Mexico Human Services Department. The Liberty Justice Center, which says it “fights for the constitutional rights of American families, workers, advocates and entrepreneurs,” represented Hendrickson. What's at issue, and how the lower court ruledHendrickson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Nov. 30, 2018. His attorneys said AFSCME Council 18 had “violated Hendrickson’s First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association by refusing to allow him to withdraw his membership until an arbitrary two-week window of time and by continuing to charge him union dues based solely on a union card which could not have constituted ‘affirmative consent’ because it was signed before the Janus decision.” Hendrickson’s suit also claimed that New Mexico statutes granting unions exclusive representation on matters of public policy violated the First Amendment. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages “in the amount of all dues deducted and remitted to the Union since he became a member.” Hendrickson fails to point to any decision that applied Janus to void a union membership contract under similar circumstances. On the contrary, each court that examined this issue has rejected the claim that Janus entitles union members to resign and stop paying dues on their own—rather than on the contract's—terms… As part of the contract, he knowingly agreed that he could only revoke his dues deduction authorization during a two-week opt-out window. He does not allege that he was coerced, and the parties agree that he was not required by state law to join. He could have paid a lesser fair share fee as a nonmember, but instead, he chose to join the Union. Hendrickson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Feb. 19, 2020. How the Tenth Circuit ruledThe three-judge panel—Judges Scott Matheson, Carlos Lucero, and Carolyn McHugh—unanimously affirmed the district court’s ruling on March 26. In Janus, the Court said the First Amendment right against compelled speech protects non-members of public sector unions from having to pay “agency” or “fair share” fees—fees that compensate the union for collective bargaining but not for partisan activity. Mr. Hendrickson contends that, under Janus, the Union cannot (1) retain dues that had been deducted from his paycheck, or (2) serve as his exclusive bargaining representative. The district court dismissed these claims. … President Barack Obama appointed Matheson and McHugh to the court. President Bill Clinton appointed Lucero. What We're Reading
The Big PictureNumber of relevant bills by stateWe are currently tracking 86 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we're tracking. Number of relevant bills by current legislative statusNumber of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)
Recent Legislative ActionsBelow is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.
|
See also
|