ABOOD v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether an "agency shop" arrangement, authorized by Michigan law between a local government employer and a union representing local government employees, whereby every employee represented by the union, even though not a union member, was required to pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service fee equal in amount to union dues, violated the constitutional rights of those government employees who objected to public sector unions or to various union activities financed by the compulsory service fees.

Action

Vacated and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

A Michigan law allowed unions to represent local government employees and use an “agency shop” system. Under this system, employees covered by a union contract had to pay the union a fee equal to union dues, even if they chose not to join the union. Paying this fee was a requirement for employees to keep their jobs.

Several Detroit public school teachers challenged this arrangement in state court. They sued the Detroit Board of Education, the teachers’ union, and union officials. The teachers argued that they did not want to pay union dues or fees, opposed collective bargaining for public employees, and objected to the union spending money on political or ideological activities unrelated to workplace bargaining. They asked the court to declare the agency shop clause invalid under Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution, arguing that it violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of association.

The trial court dismissed the case, saying the teachers had not stated a valid legal claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals partly reversed the decision on other issues but upheld the agency shop clause as constitutional. The appeals court also said that forcing employees to support union political spending unrelated to collective bargaining could violate their constitutional rights. However, it ruled that the teachers could not get money back because they had not told the union which political causes or candidates they objected to.