| Abood v. Detroit Board of Education | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 9, 1976 Decided May 23, 1977 | |
| Full case name | D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education |
| Docket no. | 75-1153 |
| Citations | 431U.S.209 (more) 97 S. Ct. 1782; 52L. Ed. 2d 261; 1977U.S. LEXIS 91 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 60Mich. App. 92, 230N.W.2d322 (1975); probable jurisdiction noted,425 U.S. 949 (1976). |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied,433 U.S. 915 (1977). |
| Holding | |
| "Agency shop" clause whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues, was valid insofar as the service charges are used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | Powell (in judgment), joined by Burger, Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Overruled by | |
| Janus v. AFSCME (2018) | |
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was aUS labor law case where theUnited States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of aunion shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sectorcollective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In aunanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.[1]
Abood was overturned in the 2018 caseJanus v. AFSCME, which found thatAbood had failed to properly assess the First Amendment principles in its decision.
Michigan law authorized agency shop agreements between public agencies and unions representing government workers. The Detroit Federation of Teachers was certified as the exclusive union for Detroit schoolteachers in 1967.[2] D. Louis Abood, a school teacher, who objected to union membership and to the union's endorsements of political candidates, sued in Michigan state court in 1969.[3]
Abood was represented by Michael A. Carvin, who asked the state court to rule against his clients so that he could appeal the case to the Supreme Court.[4][5]
The Court upheld collective bargaining fees on the basis of private sector precedents inRailway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson (1956) andInternational Ass'n of Machinists v. Street (1966).[1]
The restriction on union use of funds for non-collective-bargaining purposes was based onFirst Amendment protections regarding freedom of speech and association. The Court found,
[The] notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that, in a free society, one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience, rather than coerced by the State ... thus prohibit[s] the appellees from requiring any of the appellants to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job as a public school teacher ... the Constitution requires ... that such [political union] expenditures be financed from charges, dues, or assessments paid by employees who do not object to advancing those ideas and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment.[6]
Thus, in the United States' public sector, employees of the employer are entitled to not be members of the union, but they can be required to pay the documented costs of contract administration and negotiation. If they object, typically such a determination is submitted for hearing to a neutralarbitrator who will take evidence and render a final and binding decision as to the propriety of the fees assessed.[7][8]
Since JusticeSamuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2006, anti-union groups have looked to challenge the decision ofAbood by arguing that the inherent activities of a public section union including political campaigning that make it difficult to separate the use of non-member dues.[9] The Court had prepared to rule onFriedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n, No. 14-915, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), which appeared to be ready to overturnAbood, but with the death of JusticeAntonin Scalia, the case was closed on a deadlock 4–4 decision that leftAbood in place.[9]
Abood was overruled inJanus v. AFSCME, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), which ruled that public sector unions may not collect fees from non-members. InJanus, the 5–4 majority agreed thatAbood had not properly considered the First Amendment principles, and was "wrongly decided".[9]
This article incorporatespublic domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by thefederal judiciary of the United States.
