September 20, 2021

Volume XI, Number 263

Advertisement

September 20, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Right to Work Ruled Valid and Enforceable – Again

On September 26, 2016, Federal District Court Judge J. P. Stadtmueller upheld Wisconsin’s Right to Work Law, rejecting union arguments that the state law was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that it constituted an unconstitutional “taking” of property from the unions. The unions argued that absent compelled union dues, they would be forced to provide services to non-paying employees. Wisconsin’s Right to Work law has now been upheld twice, including an earlier failed Wisconsin state court challenge.

Any appeal of the decision faces an uphill fight, as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld Indiana’s Right to Work law and, in the process, rejected very similar arguments to those the unions relied on in this case.

At the core of the Right to Work law is the policy that employees in Wisconsin cannot be forced to either join a union (become a member) or to pay union dues (so-called fair share payments). It’s well settled that compulsory union membership is illegal, and both the unions and the state of Wisconsin stipulated to that point. The lawsuit focused on the unions’ claimed right to force non-members to pay dues to the union as a condition of employment.

The court rejected the unions’ claim that the NLRA preempted the state law’s provision prohibiting compelled union dues, noting that the NLRA contains a clause that allows the states to regulate union dues payments and that the courts have decided over the years that states are free to allow or ban compelled dues payments as they see fit. Wisconsin was the 26th state to pass a Right to Work law forbidding compulsory union dues.

The unions’ takings argument was also rejected. The Seventh Circuit had previously held that a union still was required to expend funds for nonmembers without just compensation because mandatory representation is the flip side of the coin of a union’s right to exclusive representation. That is, a union’s compensation for mandatory representation is the ability to exclude other unions from the bargaining table.

The unions who filed this lawsuit had also negotiated what they call “Fair Representation Fee Agreements” with certain Wisconsin employers. These agreements feature a conditional representation fee provision, which essentially provides that if the Right to Work law was found to be invalid, all employees would have to pay a service fee equating to the value of the union’s negotiation and administration of a labor agreement. In light of Judge Stadtmueller’s decision, these types of agreements should be evaluated by experienced labor counsel. Counsel should also be consulted prior to expiration of an existing labor agreement with a dues payment requirement, so as to consider the options available under the Right to Work law.

©2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLPNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 273
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

scott c. beightol, partner, labor and employment law, michael best law firm
Partner

Scott counsels clients on their “people” issues. Businesses, owners, and boards of directors look to Scott as their outside general counsel to ensure legal compliance of their operations and initiatives. Scott represents businesses before federal and state courts and administrative agencies throughout the country in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on:

  • Employment discrimination, including before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
  • Non-compete and trade secrets
  • Labor...
414-225-4994
Joseph Olson, Michael Best Law Firm, Employee Benefits Litigation Attorney
Partner

Joe is a trial attorney practicing primarily in the areas of class action defense, wage and hour litigation, employee benefits litigation, regulatory compliance, and complex commercial litigation. In this capacity, he:

  • Routinely helps clients deal with class actions suits across all subject matters

  • Handles all aspects of complex employment litigation including wage and hour suits arising under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws, plus benefits litigation...

414-277-3465
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement