High court agrees to hear challenge of Calif. law

The Supreme Court, heeding pleas from national business groups and the Bush administration, agreed Tuesday to hear a challenge to a California law that forbids employers from using state funds to “deter” their workers from joining a union.

The union-backed measure was approved by the state Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2000. Since then, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been attacking the law in the federal courts. Its lawyers say the measure conflicts with the “level playing field” set by federal labor law. As the Chamber sees it, union officials and management deserve the same rights to try to persuade their workers to vote for or against a union.

The California law “is part of a concerted effort to spur union organizing by silencing anti-union employer speech,” the Chamber’s lawyers said in their appeal to the Supreme Court. They said the law’s impact would fall most heavily in industries such as healthcare, where the state subsidizes care for elderly and low-income persons.

Last year, however, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state law in a 12-3 decision. The majority, led by Judge Raymond C. Fisher of Los Angeles, noted that the law did not prevent employers from speaking out against unions. Rather, it prevented them from using the state’s money in such efforts. Federal labor law does not restrict the “state’s exercise of its sovereign power to control the use of its funds,” the 9th Circuit said.

In October, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement weighed in on the side of the Chamber. He filed a brief that urged the justices to hear the case and void the state law. “California had adopted a policy of coercing certain employers to remain silent in response to union organizing efforts,” he said.

New York and eight other states have enacted similar measures, he said, citing Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio and Rhode Island. Lawmakers in Michigan and New Jersey are considering such measures, he added.

The solicitor general, who represents the Bush administration before the high court, said justices should strike down the state’s law because it has “altered significantly the balance of labor relations in California.”

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said the high court should not intervene because it is still not clear how the law would work in practice. It was initially struck down by a federal judge before it was revived by the 9th Circuit.

But after meeting behind closed doors Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court issued a brief order saying the justices had voted to hear the case of Chamber of Commerce vs. Brown. They will hear arguments in March and issue a ruling by late June.

david.savage@latimes.com