KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION

Legal Principle at Issue

Did the SEIU violate the First Amendment rights of nonunion public employees by requiring them to contribute to the special political fund without giving prior notice and the opportunity to opt out?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

California law permits public-sector employees in a bargaining unit to decide by majority vote to create an “agency shop” arrangement under which all the employees are represented by a union. Even employees who do not join the union must pay an annual fee for “chargeable expenses,” like the cost of nonpolitical union services related to collective bargaining. Under the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a public-sector union can bill nonmembers for chargeable expenses, but it may not require nonmembers to fund political or ideological projects.

In June 2005, the respondent Service Employees International Union, a public-sector union, sent to California employees its annual Hudson notice, setting and capping monthly dues and estimating that 56.35% of its total expenditures in the coming year would be chargeable expenses. A nonmember had 30 days to object to full payment of dues but would still have to pay the chargeable portion. The notice stated that the fee was subject to increase without further notice. That same month, the governor called for a special election on two ballot propositions opposed by the SEIU. After the 30-day objection period ended, the SEIU sent a letter to unit employees announcing a temporary 25% increase in dues and a temporary elimination of the monthly dues cap, billing the move as an “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund.” The purpose of the fund was to help achieve the union’s political objectives in the special election and in the upcoming November 2006 election. The union noted that the fund would be used “for a broad range of political expenses, including television and radio advertising, direct mail, voter registration, voter education, and get out the vote activities in our work sites and in our communities across California.” Nonunion employees were not given any choice as to whether they would pay into the fund.

Petitioner Diane Knox and others, on behalf of nonunion employees who paid into the fund, brought a class action against the SEIU alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. The federal district court granted petitioners summary judgment. Ruling that the special assessment was for entirely political purposes, it ordered the SEIU to send a new notice giving class members 45 days to object and to provide those who object a full refund of contributions to the fund. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, concluding that Hudson prescribed a balancing test under which the proper inquiry is whether the SEIU’s procedures reasonably accommodated the interests of the union, the employer, and the nonmember employees.