最高裁は、公的労働者がユニオンの会費の支払いを拒否することを許す決定を下した

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Some Public Workers to Opt Out of Union Fees

June 30, 2014, the New York Times

月曜日、最高裁は、政府の雇用者が彼らを代表する労働組合へ組合費を支払う必要がないと、裁定した。しかし、多くのパブリックセクターの労働者に組合費を支払うことを要求する数十年前の慣例を無効にすることは拒否した。

5対4の決定で、判事のSamuel A. Alito Jr.は、Madicaidの利用者によって雇用されるホームケア援助職のような、一部の公務員（a partial public employee）は、ユニオンに加入することを拒否することも、その会費を支払うことを要求されないこともできる、と結論を下した。

これらの公務員の賃金は州が決定するし、ユニオンは、しばしば、こののような一部の公務員のために集合的交渉をしないので、これらの援助職は、組合費を要求され得ない。

このケースは、Medicaid受給者へ在宅でのヘルスケアを提供するイリノイ州の8人の労働者によって持ち込まれた。彼らは、政府による雇用者はユニオンへ組合費を払うように要求されうるとする、1977年の決定を覆すことを裁判所に要求。しかし、最高裁は、この根本的な決定を覆すことは拒否した。

イリノイや他の州は、政府の労働者に、彼らがユニオンへの参加を選択しようがしまいが、ユニオンの集合的交渉への努力を財政的に援助する"fair share"の組合費を支払うように要求している。

しかし、SEIUやオバマ政権は、裁判所に、"fair-share fees"の適法性を支持するように説得してきた。

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly on Monday that some government employees did not have to pay any fees to labor unions representing them, but the court decision declined to strike down a decades-old precedent that required many public-sector workers to pay union fees.

Writing the majority 5-4 opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concluded that there was a category of government employee ― a partial public employee ― who can opt out of joining a union and not be required to contribute dues to that labor group.

Justice Alito wrote that home-care aides who are typically employed by an ill or disabled person with Medicaid’s paying their wages would be classified as partial public employees, which would not be the same as public-school teachers or police officers who work directly for the government.

Because states often set wages for partial public employees like home-care aides and because unions often do not conduct collective bargaining for them, these aides cannot be required to pay union fees, Justice Alito wrote. He wrote that requiring these home-care aides to pay would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The case, Harris v. Quinn, was brought by eight Illinois workers who provided home health care to Medicaid recipients. They asked the court to overrule a 1977 decision that declared that government employees can be required to pay fees to unions for representing them and administering their contracts even if they disagree with the union’s positions. The majority declined to overrule that foundational decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ― a move that could have significantly cut into the membership and treasuries of public-sector unions.

Illinois and numerous other states require government workers, whether or not they opt to join a union, to pay “fair share” fees to finance a union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and to ensure “labor peace.” But the court in Abood held that workers could not be required to help pay for activities that were purely political, like a union’s lobbying the legislature or campaigning for particular candidates.

But the Service Employees International Union and the Obama administration urged the court to uphold the legality of “fair-share fees.”