AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Union and Associational Activity
Monthly Law Journal Article: Picketing Rights of Public Employees, 2007 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
Unions representing federal employees sued President Donald Trump over various aspects of three executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees. The “Collective Bargaining Order” provided agencies with certain procedures that they should seek to institute during negotiations with unions. This order also tells agencies not to negotiate over "permissive" subjects, defined as those that are negotiable "at the election of the agency.” The “Official Time Order” instructs agencies to aim to limit the extent to which collective bargaining agreements authorize “official time,” meaning time spent by employees on union business during working hours. This order also established rules that limit whether “agency time and resources” may be used by employees on non-government business. The “Removal Procedures Order” instructs agencies to seek to exclude from grievance proceedings any dispute over a decision to remove an employee “for misconduct or unacceptable performance.” Subject to various exceptions, this order also prohibits agencies from resolving disputes over employee ratings and incentive pay through grievance or arbitration proceedings, and mandates that some subpar employees may have no more than thirty days to improve their performance before being reassigned, demoted, or fired. The trial court found that some of the provisions were unlawful and enjoined them from being implemented. A federal appeals court overturned that ruling, holding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The unions were required to pursue their claims through the scheme established by the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, which provides for initial administrative review by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). Only following that could the unions seek judicial review in a federal appeals court. The unions could not bypass the FLRA by filing a lawsuit in a federal district court challenging the President’s actions. American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, #18-5289, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20957 3122446 (D.C. Cir.).
Massachusetts state employees filed challenges under the First Amendment to the exclusive representation and the mandatory agency fee provisions of the state collective bargaining statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150. While their lawsuit was on appeal, the United States Supreme Court held, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, #16-1466, 138 S. Ct. 2448 2018 U.S. Lexis 4028, 2018 WL 3129785 (2018) that all state agency fee laws violate the First Amendment by compelling nonmembers of public sector unions to support their unions’ speech. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that because the state employee unions voluntarily stopped collecting agency fees to comply with Janus, the employees’ agency fee provision challenge was moot; and because the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed exclusive representation to be constitutional, their challenge to the exclusive representation provisions of the state statute were without merit. Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, SJC-12603, 481 Mass. 810, 120 N.E.3d 1163, 2019 Mass. Lexis 181, 2019 WL 1522991.
A police officer involved in union leadership participated in contract negotiations and disciplinary hearings for other officers. Other officers allegedly told him that a man in charge of the township’s personnel matters repeatedly disparaged his union activities. When the township was without a chief, the plaintiff was the department’s senior lieutenant, next in line to become captain. The township had previously routinely selected its chief from among its captains, and the plaintiff believed that he could be promoted to captain for a short time and then be promoted to chief. Someone else was promoted to chief, however, and the plaintiff stepped down as union president because he “knew” that the man in charge of the township’s personnel issues had a “problem” with his union activities. While the new chief was scheduled to retire shortly, the plaintiff believed that he would never become chief, so he retired. Suing the township and the personnel manager for discrimination and retaliation, all his claims were rejected. A federal appeals court, however, ruled that the trial court should have analyzed his speech and association claims separately, since his union association deserved constitutional protection. His free speech claim must fail, since he asserted that he was retaliated against because of his union membership, not because of his advocacy on any particular issue. Palardy v. Township of Millburn, #17-2597, 2018 U.S. App. Leis 26637, 2018 WL 4472957 (3rd Cir.).
When a union was designated as the collective bargaining agent for a group of Illinois public sector workers, it represented even those employees who did not join the union and was empowered to collect an agency fee from nonmember employees, a percentage of the full union dues to cover union expenditures attributable to activities “germane” to the union’s collective bargaining activities, but which may not cover the union’s political and ideological projects. A non-member of the union that represented him and his fellow public employees, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the state law authorizing agency fees. The U.S. Supreme Court overruling its holding, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, #75-1153, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) as inconsistent with First Amendment principles. It ruled that Illinois law compelled non-consenting workers to subsidize the speech of other private speakers and could not be justified by asserted interests in “labor peace,” which can readily be achieved through less restrictive means, or in avoiding “the risk of free riders,” because unions are willing to represent nonmembers without agency fees. Interests in bargaining with an adequately funded agent and improving the efficiency of the workforce also did not suffice to justify the fee. Unions can be effective without agency fees, the Court found. The union speech at issue did not cover only matters of private concern but covered critically important public matters such as the state’s budget crisis, taxes, and collective bargaining issues related to education, child welfare, healthcare, and minority rights. The government’s stated interests must, therefore, justify the heavy burden of agency fees on nonmembers’ First Amendment interests. They do not, the Court ruled. States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from non-consenting employees. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, #16-1466, 2018 U.S. Lexis 4028.
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the U.S. Capitol Police engaged in an unfair labor practice when it issued an officer a Command Discipline Warning in response to his protected union activity. He had expressed dissatisfaction with a departmental policy of requiring officers to work double shifts when the need arose, and sometimes informing an officer about the extra shift only at the last minute. . The Collective Bargaining Agreement permitted the department to require officers on the current tour to be held over for a subsequent tour. The parties did not dispute that the officer was engaged in protected activity when he raised the issue during regularly scheduled labor-management meetings and when he repeated his concerns in an email to the police chief. The court rejected the employer’s argument, that the part of his email protesting his own personal holdover did not constitute a protected activity. Substantial evidence supported findings that the officer made a prima facie case of discrimination and that the department’s stated justifications were pretextual. U.S. Capitol Police v. Office of Compliance, #16-2712, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 386 (Fed. Cir.).
The appeals court also noted the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, #75-1153, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) upholding, against a First Amendment
challenge, a Michigan law that allowed a public employer, whose employees
(public-school teachers) were represented by a union, to require those of its
employees who did not join the union nevertheless to pay fees to it because
they benefited from the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the
employer. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, #16-3638, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017).
A
public employee union filed a lawsuit asserting a First Amendment challenge to
an Alabama state statute that “prohibit[s] a state or local government employee
from arranging by payroll deduction or otherwise the payment of any
contribution to an organization that uses any portion of those contributions
for political activity.” The union argued that the subjective motivations of
state lawmakers in passing the law was to retaliate against the union for
political speech on education policy. As part of pursuing this claim, the
plaintiff union used subpoenas seeking the files of four state legislators. A
federal appeals court reversed the trial court's refusal to quash the subpoenas.
It noted that when a statute was facially constitutional, as this one was, a
free speech challenge cannot be based on the subject motivation of the
lawmakers, their purpose in passing the law. In re: Mike Hubbard, #13-10281,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17863 (11th Cir.).
A sergeant working at a
county jail was also a union leader. The union initiated mandatory contract
arbitration with the sheriff's officer. At the arbitration, an undersheriff
testified regarding training on CPR, firearms, and Taser. The sergeant then
testified that the undersheriff had misrepresented the degree of training
provided. Following this, the sergeant was told to wear business attire or his
uniform to subsequent arbitrations. He later wore a golf shirt and blazer and
was investigated for disobeying a direct order. He was then told that there
would be an investigation regarding his actions during a power outage at the
jail, and another investigation regarding subordinates' charges against him. He
was ordered not to inquire into this last investigation with any witnesses or
investigators but admittedly asked his subordinates for details concerning it.
He was subsequently suspended without pay for several days and demoted for
having created an unprofessional and hostile environment for subordinates as
well as having made derogatory statements to female detainees. In a lawsuit for
unlawful retaliation, a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
county. While his testimony at the arbitration was protected by the First
Amendment, he failed to prove that his demotion and suspension were the result
of him being punished for his criticism, rather than being punished for his own
"extensive misconduct." Boulton v. Swanson, #14-2308, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 13195, 2015 Fed. App. 170P (6th Cir.).
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a state
civil service commission lacked the authority under state law to compel civil
service employees who were union-eligible employees who opt out of union
membership to pay agency shop fees. Public employee unions had previously
negotiated various collective bargaining agreements with the state that contain
agency shop fee arrangements covering the employees whom they represent. UAW v.
Green, #147700, 2015 Mich. Lexis 1772.
A union representing Los Angeles police officers
sued to attempt to invalidate a departmental order limiting the individual
discretion of officers as to when to impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers.
The union believed that the order conflicted with state statutes, resulted in
fewer such cars being impounded, and could lead to civil liability for its
members for failing to carry out mandatory duties required by state statutes.
Rejecting these arguments, an intermediate state appeals court found that the
order was within the broad discretion of the police chief, did not conflict
with state statutes, and did not create new law, but merely implemented the
state statutes. The union had no standing to challenge it in court, and had not
shown that it fell within the topics of hours, wages, and working conditions
that constituted the scope of its representation. Los Angeles Police Protective
League v. City of Los Angeles, #B251796, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 1180.
A psychologist at an Illinois state prison
claimed that he suffered retaliation in violation of the First Amendment after
he was elected to his union's Executive Board and engaged in advocacy for union
members, voicing employee concerns to management. Adverse actions allegedly
included relocating his office, increasing his work load, denying his request
for advance leave time, revising directives affecting his job duties without
his input, removing him from a hostage crisis team, and making him meet with
mentally ill inmates without a guard in the same room. He was, however, not
fired, disciplined, or denied an employment opportunity. A federal appeals
court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that because the
plaintiff was acting as a union official, not as a public employee, when he
made the statements that were at issue, and they were therefore not protected
by the First Amendment. His complaints to management about the collective
bargaining agreement and work conditions were merely employee grievances and he
did not show that he addressed matters of public concern. Olendzki v. Rossi,
#12-1340, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 16866 (7th Cir.).
The collective bargaining organization
representing Philadelphia police officers, the Fraternal Order of Police,
operated a political action committee to distribute political contributions to
candidates for state and local office. The union, the political action
committee, and four officers sued to question the constitutionality of
provisions of the city charter that barred employees of the police department
from making contributions "for any political purpose. The provision only
applied to police, and not to other city employees and was adopted in 1951
because of a history of patronage employment. The federal appeals court found
that the ban was unconstitutional, reasoning that it may address valid concerns
(such as police partiality and politicized personnel practices) but that the
city did not explain how the ban addressed the feared harms in a direct and
material way. There was a lack of fit between the city's stated purpose and the
means chosen to promote it, and it was illogically under-inclusive. Lodge No. 5
of the Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, #13-1516, 763 F.3d
358 (3rd Cir. 2014).
A corrections officer was fired from his employment with the county
after he spoke to a news reporter about the arrest of a university football
player without authorization from the sheriff. He argued that this violated his
First Amendment right to free speech. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals
court found that the statements made were ordinarily within the scope of his
duties, and did not merely concern those duties. He did not speak to the news
reporter as a private citizen and therefore his speech was not protected
against employer discipline under the First Amendment. Hurst v. Lee County,
#13-60540, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 16153, 38 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1607 (5th Cir.).
A police sergeant who served as a union
representative was transferred on the basis of the city's expressed concerns
about his exercise of supervisory authority. The union tried to enforce a
provision of the collective bargaining agreement prohibiting the transfer
without voluntary agreement of certain union representatives between stations.
A grievance arbitrator ordered the officer's reinstatement to his original
position and damages, finding that the contract had been violated. The highest
court in Massachusetts ordered that the award be vacated, finding that the
arbitrator exceeded his authority in overturning the transfer, since the police
commissioner had statutory non-delegable powers to assign and transfer officers
within the department. City of Boston v. Boston Police Superior Officers
Fed'n, #SJC-11238, 466 Mass. 210, 2013 Mass. Lexis 688.
Labor unions and state employees sued various
state officials, claiming that they violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment
right to freedom of association by targeting employees for firing on the basis
of their union membership. A federal appeals court ruled that, based on
stipulated facts, that was the case, and reversed summary judgment for the
defendants, instructing that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiffs on
their First Amendment claim and that appropriate equitable relief be granted.
Further proceedings were ordered on individual plaintiffs claims. Claims for
money damages against the defendants in their individual capacities were not
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v.
Rowland, #11-3061, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10970 (2nd Cir.).
The First Amendment prohibits a public employee
union from increasing political activity fees for non-consenting nonmembers who
are required to pay certain union dues. The special assessment or dues increase
was imposed to raise funds for the political purpose of fighting state efforts
to reduce public employee pay. These expenses were not disclosed when the
regular assessment was set, so the union should have sent out a special notice
to inform the non-members of them and should refrain from collecting such funds
without the non-members' consent. Knox v. Service Employees International
Union, #10-1121, 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2012 U.S. Lexis 4663.
A county correctional employee was fired for
transmitting a sexually explicit image to a subordinate's cell phone, and other
charges. A federal appeals court ruled that the pre-termination hearing
provided to the employee satisfied due process requirements. He claimed that he
was fired in retaliation for having brought a lawyer to represent him at his
pre-termination hearing, in violation of his First Amendment right to
association. The appeals court rejected this claim, stating that his retention
of an attorney did not relate to a matter of public concern. The court relied
on Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, #09-1476, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4564, 131 S. Ct.
2488, holding that when a public employee claims retaliation against them based
on the exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the government, they
must show their actions related to a matter of public concern, The appeals
court found that the same reasoning applied to First Amendment association
claims. Merrifield v. County of Santa Fe, #10-2175, 654 F.3d
1073 (10th Cir. 2011).
In a federal civil rights lawsuit against an
officer alleging excessive use of force, the plaintiff asked to depose the
officer's union representative. The trial court ruled that a conversation
between the officer and his union representative would be privileged under
federal law, but that the union representative, in this case, improperly attempted
to invoke the privilege in refusing to answer even "foundational"
questions. The privilege does not apply to answering questions about whether
the conversation involved acting in the role of union representative. . Bell v.
Village of Streamwood, #10-C-3263, U.S. Dist. Court (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2011).
A police chief who was fired won his job back
through union arbitration, and was subsequently subjected to a variety of
restrictions concerning how to do his duties by the borough council. He sued
the borough under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arguing that his collective bargaining
grievance constituted a "petition" protected by the provision in the
First Amendment concerning the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. He further claimed that the restrictions imposed were unlawful
retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and that his
request for overtime pay was also denied in retaliation for his filing of the
lawsuit.. A federal appeals court ruled that the "public concern"
test applicable to First Amendment cases brought by public employees does not
apply to claims brought under the petition clause. The U.S. Supreme Court
disagreed, holding that a public employee's exercise of rights under either the
free speech or petition clauses must involve a matter of public concern to be
protected. The petition clause does not create "a right to transform
everyday employment disputes into matters for constitutional litigation in the
federal courts." The appeals court decision upholding jury awards of
damages for the police chief was therefore vacated. Borough of Duryea v.
Guarnieri, #09-1476, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4564.
Statements by a public employee to a union
steward are not private (privileged), if the steward voluntarily discloses the
content to management. The employee had told him, "If I get fired, I'll
kill myself." Berkner v. Dept. of Commerce, #DC-0752-09-0667-I-1, 2011
MSPB 27.
Seventh Circuit resurrects a retaliation lawsuit
brought by an ex-firefighter who claimed that his separation for sub-marginal
performance was because of his pro union activities. Although in Illinois a
small fire district is not obligated to bargain with a union, it can do so
voluntarily. The plaintiff "had the right to join a union or to organize
his fellow firefighters into a collective bargaining unit and to work to
convince the District to bargain with a group representative over wages and
benefits, even if the District had no obligation to engage in collective
bargaining." Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., #08-1976, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 9511, 604 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.).
Where a fire district is authorized, but not
required, to engage in collective bargaining, a firefighter has a First
Amendment right to vigorously support unionization, and may not be terminated
for such activities. To prevail, management must prove that it had just cause
to terminate the firefighter in the absence of his pro union support. Kodish v.
Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., #08-1976, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9511, 188
LRRM (BNA) 2513 (7th Cir.).
Federal court declines to intervene in the
removal of a union secretary from office for an alleged failure to properly
perform his duties, even if his removal was intended to stifle his free-speech
rights. Ferrer v. Intern. Longshoremen's Assn. L-1740, #3:2008cv01505, 2009
U.S. Dist. Lexis 102888 (D.P.R. 2009).
Federal labor board sustains the termination of a
private sector employee who intimidated a management official, by following him
at night in a group that was shouting at and taunting him, and making
intimidating statements such as, "We know where you live." The
employee lost the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. Starbucks
Corp. and L-660, IWW, #2-CA-37548, 354 NLRB No. 99, 2009 NLRB Lexis 343.
Management violated the collective bargaining
agreement when it asked the president of the firefighter’s union what he would
be doing while on union leave. The CBA stated that president “shall be granted”
leave “for the purposes of discharging his official duties as Local President”,
and nothing authorized his superiors to request the particulars of a leave
request. Union Township, Ohio and IAFF L-3412, FMCS #08/02678, 125 LA (BNA)
1638 (Rosen, 2008).
Seventh Circuit rejects a civil rights suit filed
by two FOP members who were expelled from the organization after they backed
opposition candidates in a union election. While "unions should tolerate
... dissension among their ranks ... the Constitution ... does not require
private organizations to provide free speech or due process rights to its
members in matters concerning their purely private and internal affairs."
The First and Fourteenth Amendments "protect citizens from conduct by the
government, but not from conduct by private actors, no matter how egregious
that conduct might be." Hallinan v. FOP L-7, #06-3602, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 14038 (7th Cir.).
Dues check off – Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3
ruling, holds that Idaho’s "Right to Work Act," which allows public
employees to authorize payroll deductions for general union dues, but prohibits
deductions for union political activities, does not violate the unions’ First
Amendment rights. "The First Amendment ... does not confer an affirmative
right to use government payroll mechanisms for the purpose of obtaining funds
for expression. Idaho’s law does not restrict political speech, but rather
declines to promote the speech by allowing employee check offs for political
activities." Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Assn., #07-869, 129 S.Ct. 1093,
2009 U.S. Lexis 1632.
Federal labor board upholds the termination of
two courthouse security officers for neglect of duty. Although they had a legal
right to confer about work activities, they created a security risk by
convening a meeting of officers in a room where they could not effectively
monitor the courthouse. However, the employer unlawfully ordered officers not
to speak to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board or to others
regarding discharges of employees. Akal Security and United Govt. Security
Officers L-118, #2009.19-CA-30891, 354 NLRB No. 11, 186 LRRM (BNA) 1097, 2009
NLRB Lexis 131.
Eleventh Circuit upholds the termination of two police
union officials who attempted to put financial pressure on government by
initiating a citation-writing slow-down campaign, and also violated a policy
against secretly audio-taping others. Douglas v. DeKalb Co., #08-10052, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 1266 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Arbitrator finds that management retaliated
against a police union steward by denying a request for light-duty assignment,
where other employees had been given such assignments, and the chief ordered
officer to fire from kneeling position during a qualification test after
grievant had returned from knee injury, even though the grievant "had been
instructed at academy not to include this dangerous maneuver as part of
qualification course." Dept. of Veterans Affairs and AFGE L-1539, FMCS
Case #08/57425, 125 LA (BNA) 1528 (Neigh, 2008).
Federal court refuses to enjoin an internal union
hearing of charges brought against officials of a local. The plaintiffs were
unable to show imminent irreparable harm or bias by members of the executive
board. Babler v. Futhey, #1:08cv912, 2008 WL 3822179, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis
10484, 195 LRRM (BNA) 2993 (N.D. Ohio).
In a dues check-off
case, the Supreme Court concludes that the First Amendment permits a local
union to charge nonmembers for national litigation expenses as long as the
subject matter is related to collective bargaining rather than political
activities, and the charge is reciprocal. Locke v. Karass, #07-610, 2009 U.S.
Lexis 590.
First Circuit affirms a jury verdict of $17,980
against a Massachusetts sheriff for retaliation against correctional officers
for engaging in pro-union activity. Davignon v. Hodgson, #06-1191, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 8855 (1st Cir.).
National Labor Relations board, in a 3-to-2
ruling, holds that employers can prohibit union solicitations on internal
e-mail systems. The Guard Pub. Co. and Eugene Newspaper Guild, CWA L-37194, #
36-CA-8743-1, 351 NLRB No. 70, 2007 NLRB Lexis 499, 183 LRRM (BNA) 1113.
Federal appeals court reinstates an action filed
by Ohio firefighters who claimed they were passed over for promotion because of
their union activities. Zerman v. City of Strongsville, #06-4461, 2008 U.S.
Dist. App. Lexis 367 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
New Jersey appellate court upholds the assessment
of a fine and costs against a union official that erected a ten-foot inflatable
rat on the sidewalk in front of the premises that the union was seeking to
organize. The National Labor Relations Act did not preempt a local sign
ordinance, it did not violate the First Amendment, was not unconstitutionally
vague, was a content-neutral restriction, and was not selectively enforced
against labor unions. New Jersey v. DeAngelo, # A-4229-05T3, 2007 N.J. Super.
Lexis 304 (App. Div.).
Fifth Circuit finds that it was clearly
established that a municipal fire chief violated the First Amendment by
retaliating against a subordinate for engaging in union activities by
submitting a grievance on behalf of the union calling for the chief's
termination. Phillips v. City of Victoria, #06-40629, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
18427 (5th Cir.).
Reversing the District Judge, the Ninth Circuit
reinstates a wrongful discharge action filed by a union in behalf of a TSA
screener that claimed he was dismissed for engaging in union activities.
"If Congress wishes to deny federal employees the ability to redress
alleged constitutional violations, it must state its intention clearly. We
conclude that the statutory scheme governing TSA security screeners does not
express a clear intention on the part of Congress to preclude judicial review
of screeners' constitutional claims." AFGE L-1 v. Stone, #05-15206, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 21180 (9th Cir.).
Sixth Circuit finds that a terminated police
officer's union activity and speech addressing internal personnel issues were
not matters of public concern protected by the First Amendment, where the
issues were personal in nature. Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, #06-1904,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16735 (6h Cir.) affirming, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32963
(W.D. Mich. 2006).
Appellate court rejects retaliation claims filed
by police officers that alleged anti-union bias. The failure to promote action
was seven months after participation in a union's petition drive. Harvey v.
City of Rio Rancho, #06-2278, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18010 (10th Cir.)
Michigan sheriff lawfully disciplined a detective
who had faxed an internal pager policy to the union's attorney without
complying with the department's prior-authorization rule, even though employee
work rules are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Ingham Co. v. Capitol City
FOP L-141, #263956, 2007 Mich. App. Lexis 890, 181 LRRM (BNA) 3052.
Federal appeals court rules that a security guard
firm could enforce an anti-fraternization rule regarding workplace romances,
but it could not prevent employees from discussing working conditions with each
other or with representatives of the client organization where they are
assigned. A chain-of-command rule or a no-fraternization rule cannot interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees" in the exercise of their right to
collective action. Guardsmark v. NLRB, #05-1216, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2263
(D.C. Cir.). [N/R]
Pennsylvania law banning political endorsements
by state workers did not apply to officers of a corrections union who were on
official leave for association purposes, even if their state salaries continued
while on leave. Pinto v. Civil Serv. Cmsn., #70 MAP 2005, 2006 Pa. Lexis 2519
(Penna. 2006). [N/R]
Federal jury rejects claims by the former AFGE
president who alleged that the union and its officers retaliated against him
for making controversial statements. He was ordered to pay more than $25,000 in
costs. Commer v. McEntee, #00Civ.7913, 44 (2186) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1326; facts and
prior ruling at 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82395, 180 LRRM (BNA) 3105 (S.D.N.Y.
2006). {N/R}
National Labor Relations Board affirms an ALJ's
finding that the employer violated 8(a)(1) of the Act by initiating a drive to
decertify a union and then coercing its employees to support the
decertification drive. Corrections Corp. of Amer. and Int. Union, Security,
Police, and Fire Prof. of Amer., #21-CA-36223, 2006 NLRB Lexis 297, 347 NLRB
No. 62 (2006). {N/R}
Dept. of Labor revises regulations applicable to
Federal labor organizations subject to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
the Foreign Service Act, and the Congressional Accountability Act. Labor
organizations will be required to periodically inform their members of their
rights as union members, provide written notice to existing members and to new
members within 90 days and at 3-year intervals. Notification may be made by
hand delivery, regular mail, electronic mail, or a combination of methods.
Standards of Conduct for Federal Sector Labor Organizations, 71 (106) Fed. Reg.
31929 (6/2/2006). {N/R}
NLRB finds that an employer could erect no
trespassing signs giving notice that all activities were being monitored by
video camera. Signs acknowledging the existence of video surveillance did not
restrain, coerce, or interfere with the employee's rights to organize.
Consolidated Biscuit and AFL-CIO, #8-CA-33402, 346 NLRB No. 101 (NLRB 2006).
{N/R}
Illinois appeals court reinstates a suit by a
police officer who claimed he was passed over for promotion in retaliation for
his first amendment-protected activities as a union representative. Schlicher
v. Board of Fire and Police Cmsnrs. of Westmont, #2-05-0774 2006 Ill. App.
Lexis 144 (2d App. Dist. 2006).{N/R}
Washington Supreme Court strikes down a
requirement that a public employee's union must rebate to all nonunion members
of a bargaining unit, the prorata share of amounts spent on nonbargaining
political activity, unless the nonunion members have given their written
permission. Washington State Public Disclosure Cmsn. v. Wash. Educ. Assn.,
#74268-5, 2006 Wash. Lexis 260 (2006). [2006 FP May]
Federal appeals court rejects a
firefighter's claim that his failure to receive a promotion was retaliation for
his union activity. Edgar v. Collierville, #04-5986, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 27776
(6th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
Former President of the
Broward County (Florida) Federation of Public and Private Employees sentenced
to 82 months in federal prison for receiving $600,000 in payoffs and union
funds. The union represented various school, correctional and port employees.
U.S. v. Browne (S.D. Fla. 2005). {N/R}
Federal court holds that a union was not the
official bargaining agent for airport screeners, and therefore lacked standing
to bring a back pay lawsuit in behalf of one of its members. AFGE v. Stone,
#3:04-CV-1219, 342 F.Supp.2d 619, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22082 (N.D.Tex. 2004).
{N/R}
Distinguishing uniformed public safety employees,
the Fifth Circuit holds that the wearing of a pro union lapel pin by a county
hospital worker, in violation of the employer's dress code, was speech
regarding a matter of public concern, and not speech publicizing a personal
employment grievance. Communications Workers of America v. Ector County
Hospital Dist., #03-50230, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24768 (5th Cir. 2004). [2005 FP
Feb]
A union composed of sheriff department employees
is not a "public entity" within meaning of Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, and is not entitled to governmental immunity from lawsuits.
Podboy v. FOP L-27, #02cv8267, 94 P.3d 1226, 2004 Colo. App. Lexis 969, 175
LRRM (BNA) 2085 (2004). {N/R}
Arbitrator holds that management was obligated to
pay a union steward for time spent at a grievance meeting that ran past his
normal work period, where the contract provided that a steward shall be granted
reasonable amount of time, without loss of pay, to investigate and present
grievances. Ohio Turnpike Cmsn. and Teamsters L-436, 119 LA (BNA) 1028
(Feldman, 2004). [2004 FP Sep]
Federal appeals court upholds an unfair labor
practice charge against a city bus operator that, without resorting to the
bargaining process, restricted the right of the union to post notices on the
employer's bulletin boards. ATC v. NLRB, #03-3476, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10789
(7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
California Public Employment Relations Board
judge rules that management violated state law by placing an administrator on
leave and then demoting her, because she testified in support of two
subordinate workers at a grievance hearing, resulting in a back pay award. Cal.
State Employees Assn. v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, #SA-CE-1385-S, 2004 PERC
(LRP) Lexis 48, 28 PERC 98 (PERB 2004). [2004 FP Aug]
New York court enjoins the transfer of a NYPD
union representative pending determination of an unfair labor practice charge.
His transfer to another borough undercut his status as Precinct representative
and his candidacy as a borough official. P.B.A. (Anthony) v. City of New York,
196 Misc.2d 396, 765 N.Y.S.2d 152, 2003 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 774 (2003). [2004 FP
Jul]
Massachusetts holds that management must bargain
with the union before ordering the removal of union buttons from their
uniforms, where officers have worn those buttons for many years with adverse
consequences. The bargaining requirement does not apply to non-union pins or
accoutrements. Sheriff of Worcester Co. v. Labor Relations Cmsn., #01-P-1628,
60 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 805 N.E.2d 46, 2004 Mass. App. Lexis 284 (2004). [2004
FP Jul]
Illinois Labor Board declines to interfere with
disciplinary action against officers who did not report outside earnings on their
tax returns. There was no proof of union bias, and "the fact that [the
officers] were more active members of the [union] is a mere coincidence."
Metrop. Alliance of Police #165 and Vil. of Bensenville, IL, #S-CA-00-197, 18
PERI (LRP) 2076, 2003 PERI (LRP) Lexis 1 (ILRB 2003). [2004 FP Jan]
California appeals panel holds that a teacher's
wearing of a union button in the classroom constitutes "political
activity," which may be prohibited by management. Turlock Elem. Sch. Dist
v. P.E.R.B., #F041187, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 1513 (5th Dist. 2003). {N/R}
Federal appeals court affirms the right of
nonunion members to obtain financial information justifying a deduction for
bargaining activities. Although an independent audit is not required, a union must
provide a statement of its chargeable and nonchargeable expenses, together with
an independent verification that the expenses were actually incurred. Harik v,
Cal. Teachers Assn., #01-15590, 326 F.3d 1042; 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7079 (9th
Cir. 2003); cert. den. sub nom Sheffield v. Aceves, 2003 U.S. Lexis 7714
(2003). {N/R}
Arbitrator holds that a public employees' union
may post "generic" employment information on workplace bulletin
boards, but not "internal" membership information. Naval Inventory
Control Point and AFGE L-1156, 118 LA (BNA) 695 (Pritzker, 2002). [2003 FP Oct]
Tenth Circuit allows payroll checkoff deductions of
"permit fees" assessed against newly hired workers. Courts have
consistently interpreted "membership dues" broadly to include
initiation fees and other assessments of employees by their unions. NLRB v.
Okla. Fixture Co., #01-9516, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 12287, 172 LRRM (BNA) 2821
(10th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
Sixth Circuit upholds right of uniformed
employees to wear a union-distributed button opposing forced overtime. The
nurses were engaged in protected activity that did not involve either a
slowdown or work stoppage. Mt. Clemens Gen. Hosp. v. NLRB, #01-2263, 328 F.3d
837, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9349, 172 LRRM (BNA) 2513, 2003 FED App. 0143P (6th
Cir. 2003). {N/R}
Union was not liable for a breach of its duty of
fair representation when it chose not to pursue the arbitration of a forced
transfer of one of two employees who were bitter enemies in the workplace.
Driver v. U.S. Postal Service and Amer. Postal Workers Union, #01-6079, 2003
FED App. 0140P, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9195 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Jul]
Arbitrator finds that management improperly
lowered two employee's performance ratings in retaliation for their union
organizing activities. Naval Surface Weapons Center (Carderock Div.). and Int.
Assn. of Mach. & Aerospace Workers L-282, 118 LA (BNA) 55 (Allen, 2002).
{N/R}
Federal appeals court allows a union to charge a
"reentry fee" equal to unpaid dues, to former union members who
resigned but continued to be members of the bargaining unit, as it promotes
union membership, and permits members to resign without coercion. Lee v. NLRB,
#01-1434, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 6572 (6th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
Federal court refuses to dismiss a damage suit against
the village and fire chief that alleges the denial of a promotion and other
retaliation because of the plaintiff's long-term efforts to unionize and
collectively bargain. Cunningham v. Vil. of Mount Prospect, #02C4196, 2002 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 22772 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [2003 FP May]
Arbitrator reinstates a corporal who was fired because
of very minor actions. The grievant also was president of the FOP and had cost
the city substantial amounts for the arbitration actions he initiated. City of
Coweta, Okla. and FOP L-192, FMCS Case#02/11822-8, 117 LA (BNA) 1547 (Crow,
2002). [2003 FP May]
Arbitrator rules that the U.S. Border Patrol
could not require a union local president to submit a written report concerning
when he plans to be out of town on union business, including the purpose of
meeting, with whom he is meeting, and what the meeting is about. The
requirement was not authorized under the bargaining agreement and is overly
intrusive. I.N.S., Border Patrol, El Paso and Natl. Border Patrol Council, AFGE
L-1929, 117 LA (BNA) 1252, FMCS Case #00/13188-A (Massey, 2002). {N/R}
A firefighter who was passed over for lieutenant
after he headed a union committee to negotiate higher wages can proceed with
his claim that the village retaliated against him for engaging in protected
activity. Cunningham v. Village of Mount Prospect, #02CV4196, 2002 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 22772 (N.D. Ill. 2002). {N/R}
En banc appeals court holds that a nonunion
employee is required to pay his share of the union's cost in recruiting members
outside of the bargaining unit. Supreme Court denies review. United Food and
Comm Wrkrs. L-1036 v. NLRB, 284 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. en banc); cert. den. Mulder
v. NLRB, #01-1867, 71 U.S.L.W. 3338, 2002 U.S. Lexis 8430 (2002). {N/R}
Federal appeals court affirms a holding that
township officials were not entitled to qualified immunity for laying off an
employee who advocated union representation and had filed for a representation
election. Supreme Court denies review. Wershing v. Hinckley Township, #01-3365,
36 Fed. Appx. 179; 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 9617 (Unpub., 6th Cir. 2002); cert.
den., #02-282, 2002 U.S. Lexis 5377 (2002). {N/R}
A contract in which a municipal employees union
agreed to indemnify the city for any legal challenge to fair-share fees
deducted from the pay of nonunion employees was void. The broad scope of the
indemnity also protected the city's liability for its mistakes. Wessel v. City
of Albuquerque, #01-2155, 299 F.3d 1186, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 16369, 170 LRRM
(BNA) 2718 (10th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
Fifth Circuit affirms a back pay judgment for an
officer who was fired because of his union involvement, but holds that $224,000
in damages for emotional distress was too high. Hitt v. Connell, #01-50117, 301
F.3d 240, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 15334, 170 LRRM (BNA) 2789 (5th Cir. 2002).
[2002 FP Nov]
A divided NLRB holds that an inquiry to a worker
regarding the "union sympathies of employees" is not per se coercive
and is not "unlawful interrogation" in violation of §8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act. John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc. and United
Steelworkers of Amer., #11-CA-18716, 2002 NLRB Lexis 381, 337 NLRB No. 183
(2002). {N/R}
Sixth Circuit holds than an employer did not
unlawfully discriminate against a union, under the National Labor Relations
Act, by permitting the Girl Scouts and Salvation Army to solicit on its
property, while denying union representatives the same privilege. Albertson's
Inc. v. NLRB, #00-2359, 301 F.3d 441, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 16668, 2002 FED App.
0281P, 170 LRRM (BNA) 2769 (6th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
Appeals court holds that employees cannot be
directly solicited to appear in an anti-union video. Allegheny Ludlum v. NLRB,
#01-2338, 301 F.3d 167, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 17664, 170 LRRM (BNA) 2923 (3rd
Cir. 2002). {N/R}
A provision in a CBA that the union would
indemnify the county, as employer, for any litigation challenging the
withholding of representation fees from paychecks, could not be challenged by
nonunion members of the bargaining unit. They were unable to show the agreement
harmed them. Prescott v. County of El Dorado, #01-15913, 298 F.3d 844, 170 LRRM
(BNA) 2667, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 15408 (9th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
Federal appeals court holds that a union that is
the exclusive bargaining representative can charge all members of the
bargaining unit, members and non-members alike, its costs in organizing other
similar employers within the same labor market as the bargaining unit. It affirms
a NLRB ruling that everyone's wages are raised through increased union
penetration. United Food Workers v. N.L.R.B., #99-71317, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis
4754, 169 LRRM (BNA) 2786 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Federal court upholds an officer's lawsuit against
the chief and mayor who imposed a two-day suspension for disturbing the mayor's
inauguration by blowing a truck airhorn. The protest was protected speech under
the First Amendment. Meaney v. Dever, #99-11538, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16148,
168 LRRM (BNA) 2518 (D. Mass. 2001. [2002 FP Jan]
Use of racial slurs by employees waiting in
voting line at a unionization election does not invalidate the election, absent
some evidence of intent to use race to affect the outcome. NLRB v. Foundry,
#00-5062, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 17707, 2001 FED App. 0263P (6th Cir. 2001).
{N/R}
Federal appeals court overturns a recent national
labor board ruling which had allowed the union to photograph an intimidating
certification election. Randell Warehouse v. NLRB (SMWI L-359, AFL-CIO),
#00-1155, 252 F.3d 445, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 12400, 167 LRRM (BNA) 2340 (D.C.
Cir.). [2001 FP 126]
N.Y. court upholds the termination of a security
officer who twice left a high security post without permission to meet with a
union officials about a work-related event. The reason did not justify her
unexcused absence. Leon v. Brooklyn Dev. Disab. Serv., Kings Co. N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
QDS: 42269726, unrptd. (2001).
A public employer that deducts union fees from a
nonunion employee's paycheck is not liable if the union fails to provide the
employee with the required financial disclosure. Foster v. Mahdesian,
#00-15028, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 22288 (9th Cir. 2001). {N/R}
Title III of the Labor Management and Reporting
Disclosure Act of 1959 does not allow individual union members to sue for
damages arising from the loss of an appointed union position. Ross v. Hotel
Empl. Int. Union, #00-3142, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 20652 (3d Cir. 2001). {N/R}
NLRB orders an employer not to interfere with
discussions among employees concerning their grievances and complaints. Gag
rule violates 29 U.S. Code 158(a)(1). Lockheed Martin and Fiala, #27-CA-14557
et al., 2000 NLRB Lexis 6, 330 NLRB No. 66. [2000 FP 61-2]
Firefighters, who founded the union and were not
rehired after a reorganization, win $2.2 million in their wrongful employment
and retaliation lawsuit. Gilbert v. N. Charleston, 37 (1839) G.E.R.R. (BNA)
1535 (D.S.C. 1999). [2000 FP 29-30]
Appellate court upholds ouster of a former chief
from the state's police chiefs assn. His post retirement conduct was hostile to
the interests of active chiefs. Stowell v. N.J. St. Assn. of Chiefs of Police,
739 A.2d 1011, 1999 N.J. Super. Lexis 370 (App. Div.). [2000 FP 30]
New Jersey court invalidates law allowing members
of fire and police unions to attend union conventions with pay as "special
legislation." N.J. Firemens MBA v. N. Hudson Reg. Fire Sq., Hudson Co.
#L-6510-99, N.J. Law J. 2/24/2000. {N/R}
National Labor Relations Board overturns a judge
and rules that a terminated employee's act of parading a live goose through the
workplace wearing a "vote yes" sign (promoting unionization) was not
organizational activity protected by Sec. 7 of the NLRA. In re NACCO,
#9-CA-35318-2, 331 NLRB No. 164 (NLRB 2000). {N/R}
Reinstatement and back pay ordered for a security
officer who was terminated for minor transgressions. Reasons were a pretext to
oust the officer because of his opposition to the existing union. J. K.
Guardian Services and Kissel, #13-CA- 33699, 326 NLRB No. 116, 1999 NLRB Lexis
80. [1999 FP 78-9]
Federal Labor Relations Authority upholds a
warden who put the president of the corrections union on "home-duty"
status and temporarily prohibited him from visiting the prison for union
purposes. The union official allegedly made statements that could "incite
inmates and staff members to fight one another." An "employer retains
the right to respond to an alleged offense by an employee which may adversely
affect the employer's confidence in the employee or the security or orderly
operation of the institution." An "employer may elect to reassign the
employee to another job within the institution or remove the employee from the
institution pending investigation and resolution of the matter, in accordance
with applicable laws, rules and regulations." U.S. Penitentiary,
Leavenworth, Kan. and AFGE L-919, #DE-CA-60349, 55 FLRA No. 127 p.704, 1999
FLRA Lexis 198 (1999). {N/R}
NLRB rules that if an employer allows a charity
to solicit funds while on or adjacent to its property, it must allow a labor
union the same privileges. Decision not binding on, but may have persuasive
affect on state PERBs. Four B Corp. and UFCWU l-576 (AFL-CIO), 1997 NLRB Lexis
946, 157 LRRM (BNA) 1068, 1997 NLRB Dec. (CCH) 16384, 325 NLRB No. 20
(affirming 1996 NLRB Lexis 190). [1998 FP 61]
A police chief did not violate the First
Amendment in suspending a police officer who disobeyed his order to answer
questions pertaining to a "confidential memorandum" regarding the
strategy to obtain the union's agreement to a proposed consolidation of police
with a neighboring town. Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis
11627, 14 IER Cases (BNA) 30 (2nd Cir. 1998). {N/R}
Although the bargaining agreement allowed the
union to have access to a prison-owned copier, if union officials provide their
own paper, it was not a “clear and patent breach of the agreement” when
management denied the union unrestricted access to the machine to copy dental
insurance information. U.S. Penitentiary, Florence, CO and AFGE L-1301,
#DE-CA-60383, 54 FLRA No. 6 (FLRA 1998). {N/R}
Michigan appellate court finds that management
committed an unfair labor practice by disciplining a union vice-president who
spoke to reporters about unsafe conditions at the county jail. Even if the
criticism violated an otherwise legitimate rule, management had to justify any
restriction on the exercise of union rights, where the officer's comments were
clearly directed to the jail staffing issue and not at the specifics of an
investigation related to escaped prisoners. Police Officers Assn. of Mich. v
Ottawa County Sheriff, #194712, 1997 Mich. App. Lexis 2238 (Unpub. 1997). {N/R}
Federal judge orders a union to rebate the dues
paid by a Catholic corrections officer who objects to the unions' position on
abortion and the death penalty. EEOC v. AFSCME C-82, 71 FEP Cases (BNA) 1151
(N.D.N.Y. 1996). [1996 FP 174-5]
Incumbent fire union which did not submit
recognition petition could not be listed on the representation election ballot.
There was no provision to exempt existing unions. Chino Valley Fire Dist. and
Firemens Assn. L-3522, 106 LA (BNA) 721 (Gentile, 1996). {N/R}
Federal jury awarded $685,00 to a police officer
who alleged his First Amendment rights were violated when his promotion to
sergeant was denied because of his duties as president of the police union. See
34 (1673) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 971 (7/2/96). Four days later, the court granted a
defense motion, as a matter of law, because the plaintiff failed to prove that
his speech and actions related to matters of "public concern". Gros
v. Port Washington Police Dist., 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9505, 932 F.Supp. 63, 11
IER Cases (BNA) 1510 (E.D.N.Y.). {N/R}
Firefighters lose a damage suit brought against
their union, alleging harassment. Burrell v. Int. Assn. of Firefighters (New
Rochelle), 628 N.Y.S.2d 355 (A.D. 1995). [1996 FP 62-3]
Employer can prohibit union notices on the
employee notice board. Guardian Industries v. NLRB, 49 F.3d 317 (7th Cir.
1995). [1996 FP 28-9]
Employer rule banning union messages in e-mails
is overturned because employer allowed other non business e-mails to be sent
to/from workers. E.I. du Pont, 311 NLRB 893 (1993). {N/R}
Federal appeals panel upholds termination of a
union president for misuse of union funds. Beck v. Dept. of Justice, 67
M.S.P.R. 219, 1995 MSPB Lexis 648. [1995 FP 165]
Federal appeals court reinstates a federal civil
rights suit brought by a town constable who claimed she was fired for
organizing a labor union. Wilbur v. Harris, 53 F.3d 542 (2d Cir. 1995). [1995
FP 157]
Federal jury awards commander $3.8 million
because the former police chief and other superiors retaliated against him for
his union membership. Case settled for $3.3 million. Meeks v. City of Long
Beach, #CV 92-1849-WJR (C.D.Cal. 1995). [1995 FP 142; 175]
Arbitrator sets aside the termination of a union
representative who was overly aggressive in his representation of an employee.
No guidelines existed which established appropriate behavior of employee reps.
"The grievant was merely an agent of the local union... [and] it is the
[union] that should be charged in this matter, if anyone." Federal Bur. of
Prisons and AFGE Local 171, FMCS #93-15515, 101 LA (BNA) 975 (Goodstein, 1993).
[1994 FP 142]
Arbitrator upholds a disciplinary suspension of a
union representative for directing profane language at a management negotiator
after leaving the bargaining session. However, blue language uttered during the
bargaining process was protected speech. AFGE L-3254 and Grissom A.F.B., FMCS
#93-19558, 32 (1556) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 355 (Speroff, 1994). [1994 FP 91]
"Right to Work Law" protected Virginia
fire captain who was fired for belonging to an IAFF Local. Norfolk Airport
Auth. v. Nordwall, 436 S.E.2d 436 (Va. 1993). [1994 FP 61-2]
Federal appeals court holds that union steward
can be fired for disrupting roll call sessions. Wiggins v. National Gallery of
Art, #92-3106, 30 (1494) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1642 (D.C. Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 29-30]
Federal court refuses to dismiss suit against
city and chief brought by police union president, alleging harassment and
retaliatory discipline. Broderick v. Roache, 803 F.Supp. 480 (D.Mass. 1992).
[1993 FP 110]
Federal court holds that state laws that prohibit
police associations from selling magazine advertisements or soliciting funds
from the public are unconstitutional, where the legislature allowed a one-time
exception. Ashburn Police Union v. Tierney, 756 F.Supp. 610 (D.Me. 1991). [1992
FP 45-6]
Massachusetts Democrats and police union settle
suit that claimed disruptive picketing. Decree specifies number of
informational pickets allowed, distances and notice requirements. Democratic
State Committee v. Springfield Police Local 364, Hampden Co. Super. Ct.
(9/5/91).
Supreme Court places new limits on dues
expenditures by public employee unions. Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 111
S.Ct. 1950 (5/30/91).
California Public Employment Relations Board holds
that a union has no right to be physically present at grievance meetings where
employees do not seek representation by the union. Chula Vista Educ. Assn. v.
C.V. School Dist., Docket #LA-CE-2038, Order #834, 1990 PERC (LRP) Lexis 304
(Cal. PERB 1990). {N/R}
Courts periodically uphold the right of a union
to fine or discipline a member for disruption or conduct inconsistent with
union goals. CBA Record 35 (May, 1989).
Mayor could lawfully prohibit police union from
soliciting funds from public. Petri v. Milhim 523 N.Y.S.2d 602 (A.D. 1988); see
also McGuire v. Krane, 48 N.Y.2d 661, 396 N.E.2d 742.
Police chief did not violate Ohio labor law by
attempting to question a union official regarding his representation of a
police officer in drug testing matter. The questioning of the union official
was behind closed doors and ceased as soon as official asserted that his
representation was related to union matters. No union representative was ever
ordered to answer questions or that any action was taken against him for
refusing to do so. Ohio SERB v. Rudolph, #87-ULP-05-0209, 5 Ohio Pub. Emp.
Rptr. (LRP) ¶ 5706, 1988 OPER (LRP) Lexis 2822 (Ohio SERB Hrg.Ofcr. 1988).
{N/R}
Police officer's issuance of a citation to union
official for "interfering", violated labor relations laws. Long Beach
Naval Shipyard and Federal Employees, etc. Council, Case #8-CA-60037, 25 FLRA
No. 84 (2/27/87).
Advocacy of contract changes not protected
speech; captain could be transferred without legal recourse. Shafer v. City of
Ft. Wayne, 626 F.Supp. 1115 (N.D. Ind. 1986).
Union President who called the chief a
"chicken shit" and liar could be rejected for promotion. Germann v.
City of Kansas City, 776 F.2d 761 (8th Cir. 1985).
Florida appellate court upholds charges against
fire union for harassment of non-union firefighter. DeCosta v. P.E.R.C. and
Miami Assn. of Fire Fighters Local 587 IAFF, 443 So.2d 1036 (Fla. App.) reh.
den. (1984).
Suit against police chief for surveillance of
union meeting is not an "invasion of privacy." International Union v.
Garner, 601 F.Supp. 187 (M.D. Tenn. 1985) affirming 579 F.Supp. 180 (W.D. Mo.
1984).
City could not pass over deputy chief (for
promotion to acting chief) because of his union activities. town of Burlington
v. Labor Relations Cmsn., 459 N.E.2d 125 (Mass. App. 1984).
Firefighter could unilaterally revoke his dues
checkoff authorization. City of Firefighters" Assn. v. City of
Philadelphia, 81-83 PBC (CCH) ¶ 37,762 (Super. 1983).
Federal Appeals Court reinstates $25,000 jury
verdict for demotion of fire union president. Williams v. City of Voldosta, 689
F.2d 964 (11th Cir. 1982).
Seventh Day Adventists do not have to join a
closed shop union; Title VII supercedes bargaining laws. Tooley v. Martin-Marietta
Corp., 476 F.Supp. 1027 (D. Ore. 1979).
Federal court rules that termination of union
president on disciplinary charges was pretextual and violated First Amendment.
Gerrin v. Hickey, 464 F.Supp. 276 (E.D. Ark. 1979).
Supreme court lets stand a $175,000 award to
worker against union for "emotional distress" in refusing to
arbitrate his termination. Sherrod v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers etc.
(Cal.App. 1979); cert. den. 100 S.Ct. 1024 (1980).
One union can expel members who belong to
competing union; court cites need for harmony and strategy. Calabrese v.
Policemen's Benevolent Assn. Local 76, 157 N.J. Super. 139, 384 A.2d 579
(1978).
Employees dismissed for union activities
reinstated; disciplinary charges were pretextual. General Drivers and Helpers
Union v. Brown County, 269 N.W.2d 795 (S.D. 1978).
Alabama rules union could not sue in behalf of
employees. Frazer v. Alabama State Policemen's Assn., 346 So.2d 959 (Ala.
1977).
Supreme Court declines to review dismissal of
union president for insubordinate behavior. Intern. Assn. of Firefighters L-782
v. Olson, #75-1159 (unpublished decision (10th Cir.) cert. den., 97 S.Ct. 1681
(1977).
NLRB affirms an employee's right under NLR Act
Sec. 8(a)(3) to distribute union literature on premises, and overturns a
dismissal. Beth Israel Hosp. and Mass. Hosp. Wkrs. L-880 SEIU, 228 N.L.R.B.
1495, 1977 NLRB Lexis 384; 95 LRRM (BNA) 1087, 228 NLRB No. 195, 46 L.W. 4783.
Subject matter of union newsletters discussed:
Eastex Inc. v. NLRB, 46 L.W. 4783 (1978).
Legality of union shop requirement discussed:
Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame, 45 L.W. 2499 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
California appeals court rejects union security
agreement, outlaws agency shops. City of Hayward v. United Public Employees
L-390, AFL-CIO, 126 Cal.Rptr. 710 (App. 1976).
Privileged communications: See “Disciplinary
Interviews & Compelled Reports - Privileged Communications,” concerning the
“Union Official-Union Member Privilege.”
· See also: Collective
Bargaining; Emotional Distress; First Amendment Related; Uniforms.