Teachers Union Loses in Court Over Dues Issue

The California Supreme Court, dealing a stiff blow to organized labor, held Thursday that the fees non-union public school teachers are required to pay a union may not be used over their objection for a wide range of political activity.

The justices, in a 4-3 ruling, said that while unions may automatically deduct “agency shop” fees from the non-member’s paycheck, they may not spend them for most lobbying, electioneering and recruiting activities.

The high court, in an opinion by Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, said that with certain exceptions, such activities are not the kind of “representation obligations” a non-member can be forced to support.

The majority rejected a contention by the California Teachers Assn. and the state Public Employment Relations Board that many issues extend beyond the control of local school districts, justifying the use of fees in broader union activity.

“The costs of efforts to change the law by lobbying before the Legislature, or by campaigning for or against local or state ballot propositions, are outside the union’s representational obligations,” Kaufman wrote.

The court said dues may be used for lobbying and election campaigning only when the local school district enlists union aid in seeking legislative change. The money also could be spent when there was no objection from the non-union member.

The ruling is likely to have wide impact in the state. At present, the CTA includes about 160,000 members, making it the largest teachers’ union in California. An additional 40,000 non-members are represented by the union, an undetermined but apparently small number of whom have objected to paying some portion of union dues.

The Los Angeles Board of Education is scheduled to vote Monday on whether to allow an election among the Los Angeles Unified School District’s 32,000 teachers on the non-member fee issue. About two-thirds of the district’s teachers belong to the union.

Non-members have strongly opposed the fees, with some objecting on the grounds that the dues could be used to support political aims with which they disagree.

While the decision directly involved public school employees, an attorney for the victorious party in the case said its restrictions could also eventually apply to other state and local public employee unions.

“This is the most sweeping decision of its kind,” said Anthony T. Caso of the Pacific Legal Foundation, the attorney for William J. Cumero, a King City teacher who waged a 12-year legal struggle to prevent his $150 annual dues from being used by the union over his objection. “No other court in the nation has issued such expansive protections for employees.”

Caso noted that the provisions of a state law involving educational employees were similar to other laws providing guidelines for the use of agency shop fees collected by unions for other state and local employees. “The court’s ruling today could well be applied in other cases,” he said.

Attorneys for the California AFL-CIO, backing the teachers union in the case, were not immediately available for comment.

At issue in the dispute were provisions of the Educational Employment Relations Act, which permits public school districts and unions to reach an agreement requiring non-union members to pay a “service fee” to work for the district.

The aim is to prevent non-members from enjoying a “free ride” by benefiting from collective bargaining without having to contribute dues to the union.