Court to Rule on Union Dues Used for Political Purposes

The state Supreme Court, which has issued two pro-public employee union rulings in as many months, agreed Thursday to decide whether public employees must pay union dues that support political causes they oppose.

Lawyers for both sides said the case involves the most significant union issue currently being litigated in the nation and is one that has not been decided in California.

The case stems from a complaint by King City high school teacher William J. Cumero that all but $15 of his $150 annual dues to the King City High School District Teachers Assn. went to the politically active National Education Assn. and California Teachers Assn. The King City association is an affiliate of both groups.

Part of his dues were spent on scholarships, union publications, organizing new members and on campaigns against the 1978 property tax-cutting Proposition 13 and the 1978 initiative that sought to ban homosexuals from teaching jobs, all of which he objected to.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm that represents Cumero, argues that forcing dissident members to pay for causes they oppose violates their First Amendment rights of free association and speech.

Such members should be required to pay only that part of their dues that go for collective bargaining, Cumero’s lawyers contend. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, opposed to compulsory union membership, joined on Cumero’s behalf by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the state Court of Appeal.

In April, the Court of Appeal here limited the amount of money that could be spent for union organizing, a ruling that prompted the teachers unions to appeal. The appellate court also ruled that dues could be spent on lobbying and political campaigns, an aspect that prompted Cumero’s appeal.

“It is the big issue for the right-to-work people,” said Kirsten Zerger, lawyer for the California Teachers Assn. She added that a ruling in the case would affect virtually every public employee in California.

Labor Contracts

The issue began surfacing about a decade ago, when several states, including California, passed laws granting public employees collective bargaining rights. California’s statute left open the question of whether dues could be spent on pursuits not directly related to labor contracts. Cumero’s case has been before the courts and administrative boards since 1978.

The court’s decision to resolve the issue comes a month after it held that while dissident union members can challenge payment of dues used for political or ideological purposes, they must pay first and then try to recoup the money in administrative hearings.

A month earlier, the court held that public employees, except firefighters and police, had a right to strike, unless the state could show that the public would be endangered by a strike.

Justices Allen Broussard, Cruz Reynoso, Joseph Grodin and Otto Kaus voted to hear Cumero’s case. Four votes on the seven-member court is the minimum needed to review a case. Justice Malcolm Lucas and Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird did not participate.

In another action, the court by a 6-1 vote reinstated a $2.1-million jury award against the Bank of America to a now defunct electronics firm in San Francisco.

Money Embezzled

The firm claimed that the bank forced it into bankruptcy so that the bank could recover money embezzled by a vice president of the bank who had handled the firm’s account and extended it a line of credit.

A trial judge threw out the jury award, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support it. However, the judge did not state his reason for overturning the award until 60 days after the verdict was returned.

The Supreme Court concluded that state statutes require judges who overturn jury awards to act within 60 days and state their reasons.