Most of us have grown accustomed to the new ways of labor relations business, with unions being unable to require their members to pay a fair share fee, following the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME. The lawsuits from union members seeking repayment of fees paid over their careers that followed that decision, however, are still being decided. This was the case in Hoekman v. Education Minnesota, a recent decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Two plaintiffs in this case, schoolteachers, had their terms and conditions of employment negotiated by their union, and had their fair share fees deducted from their pay every month up until the Janus decision. Two additional plaintiffs were actually full members of their unions. All parties were seeking the compulsory portion (the fair share portion) of their dues based on the Supreme Court’s findings that fair share fees were unconstitutional. The lower court found that the unions’ good faith reliance on the Minnesota statute that allowed for fair share fee payment served as a defense, and that those who voluntarily joined their unions as full members did not have a claim, as Janus only addressed fair share fee members.
On appeal, the schoolteachers argued that the good-fair defense was not available to the unions, and that the fair share fees were not used for collective bargaining. The court found that good faith defense applied to their claims, and that the plaintiffs were not allowed, at the appeal level, to levy an Abood claim of improper use of fair share fees when their original complaint was based on Janus.
The Section 1983 claims of the voluntary full union members were then addressed. Under 1983, a cause of action exists “against a defendant whose actions were taken ‘under color of’ state law and deprived another of a federal right.” The court stated that the unions’ conduct could only be deemed state action only if it was “fairly attributable to the” government. The court then held that because the two plaintiffs joined their unions and paid full membership dues, they were involved in a private agreement with their unions, and their public employers were not involved in that agreement. The employees agreed to join the union and authorized their employers to remit the dues to their unions. As such, Section 1983 did not apply.
Finally, the employees appealed the district court’s award of litigation costs to the unions. The court cited the rules of civil procedure, and the precedent that a prevailing party is “presumptively entitled to recover costs unless that presumption can be overcome by the losing party.”
With that, the decision of the district court was upheld and the plaintiffs had to pay litigation costs to the union.
It’s unknown at this point whether the plaintiffs in this case will attempt to appeal their claims to the U.S. Supreme Court, but with the current makeup of the nation’s highest court, it is likely that an appeal could be filed in effort to take advantage of a more conservative-leaning court. There are now two cases in the Eighth Circuit in which claims for dues paid while fair share fees were legal have been denied. We will keep apprised of any developments on this front.
While the legality of union dues since the Janus decision has been settled for the most part, there are still issues that come up occasionally when dealing with employees and their decisions on whether they want to be paying members of unions or not. If you, or your organization has questions pertaining to working with unions and their members, contact Wiley Reber Law, for labor relations advice that works.