Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 95-35848,96-35166 and 96-35174,95-36283,NEA-A,s. 95-35848 |
| Citation | 131 F.3d 807 |
| Parties | 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3121, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9135 Carol J. KNIGHT; Leonard F. Ball; Robert M. Bird; Rosemary K. Bird; Ann Marie Dahl; Joseph Dilley; Beverly L. Edwards; Michael P. Heaphy; Gary John Horwath; James K. Hunter; Michael E. Johnson; David McCord; Sally L. Oelrich; Deanne P. Pokryfki; Donna L. Rehberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; Walter Bromenschenkel, Superintendent; Helen Sibson; Kenai Peninsula Education Association, Defendants-Appellees. Gary JEFFERSON; Eugene L. Dyson; David Johnson; Daniel L. Hastings; Stephen A. McFerron, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; Walter Bromenschenkel, Superintendent; Helen Sibson, Director; Kenai Peninsula Education Association, Defendants-Appellees. Rebecca L. PATTERSON; Judy O. Weimer; Andrew J. Rabung; Adolph Hinson; Emma L. Smith; Carole Gene Murray; Marjorie Kyle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; Robert Christal, Acting Superintendent Anchorage School District; Leland C. Wilson, Executive Director/Instructional Support Programs and Certified Labor Relations; Anchorage Education Association;laska, Defendants-Appellees. Rebecca L. PATTERSON; Judy O. Weimer; Andrew J. Rabung; Adolph Hinson; Emma L. Smith; Carole Gene Murray; Marjorie Kyle, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; Robert Christal, Acting Superintendent Anchorage School District; Leland C. Wilson, Executive Director/Instructional Support Programs and Certified Labor Relations, Defendants-Appellants, and Anchorage Education Association;laska, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
W. James Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, for plaintiffs-appellants in Nos. 95-35848 and 95-36283.
Jeremiah A. Collins, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Kenai Peninsula Education Association in Nos. 95-35848 and 95-36283.
Howard S. Trickey and Andrena L. Stone, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, Bromenschenkel, and Sibson in Nos. 95-35848 and 95-36283.
W. James Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees in Nos. 96-35166 and 96-35174.
Jeremiah A. Collins, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Anchorage Education Association and NEA-Alaska in Nos. 96-35166 and 96-35174..
Howard S. Trickey and Andrena L. Stone, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees-cross-appellants Anchorage School District, Christal, and Wilson in Nos. 96-35166 and 96-35174..
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding (Nos. 95-35848 and 95-36283), H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding (Nos. 96-35166 and 96-35174). D.C. Nos. CV-94-00438-JWS, CV-94-00437-JWS, CV-93-00189-HRH.
Before: WALLACE, JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In these three cases consolidated for appeal, we consider the often murky area of the rights and responsibilities of nonunion employees in the union shop context. Responding to issues decided by the district court, the nonunion employees and one of the public employers appeal from parts of the various judgments. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and we have jurisdiction over these timely appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand all three cases.
Nonunion employees may be required to pay unions for benefits they receive from union collective bargaining efforts. These three appeals involve this issue in the setting of school employees.
Knight (No. 95-35848) involves the Kenai Peninsula Education Association (KPEA), a collective bargaining unit for teachers in the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. Jefferson (No. 95-36283) involves the Kenai Peninsula Educational Support Association (KPESA), which is the collective bargaining unit for school support staff in the Kenai Peninsula district. Patterson (Nos. 96-35166 and 96-35174) involves the Anchorage Education Association (AEA), the collective bargaining unit for teachers in the Anchorage School District. In all three cases, plaintiffs are nonunion members who, though not required to join the respective associations, must nevertheless pay a representation or agency fee because they benefit from the collective bargaining efforts of the associations. Alaska Stat. § 23.40.110.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-36, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799-1800, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), the Court held that, while nonunion members could be compelled to contribute to their share of costs of collective bargaining, they could not be compelled to contribute funds used to finance ideological causes not germane to collective bargaining. In Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 106 S.Ct. 1066, 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986) (Hudson ), the Court set forth the minimum procedural protections for collection of agency fees: "an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending." Id. at 310, 106 S.Ct. at 1078.
The unions and school districts in these cases have adopted similar procedures. At the beginning of the school year, the unions send a so-called "Hudson notice" that explains the breakdown between chargeable and nonchargeable expenses so that nonmembers can decide whether to object to paying for union activities that are not related to collective bargaining. Nonmembers who object have two options. They can accept the union's calculation of their share of chargeable expenses and receive a rebate equal to the percentage of full dues attributable to nonchargeable expenses. Alternatively, they can reject the union's determination, and submit to an arbitrator's calculation of the chargeable/nonchargeable expense breakdown. In that event, the nonmembers' payments are placed into an escrow account until the arbitration is completed.
On August 20, 1994, KPESA sent a letter to its nonmembers, asking them to fill out and return an attached form by September 15. The form sought, among other things, the desired method of payment for dues. KPESA provided no breakdown of chargeable and nonchargeable expenses and did not indicate that one would be forthcoming.
A day later, KPEA sent a letter to its nonmember teachers detailing the payment options for union dues or representation fees. This letter did not provide a breakdown of chargeable and nonchargeable expenses, but instead stated that one would be provided in October.
Knight and fourteen other teachers (Knight) and Jefferson and four other support staff members (Jefferson) filed their actions in district court on September 21, 1994. A month later, the school district refunded any money that nonmember teachers and support staff had paid as a result of the August 21 letter and stated that no deductions would begin until KPEA and KPESA had distributed the Hudson notice.
On November 10, 1994, KPEA sent a 116-page Hudson notice to all nonmember teachers. This notice consisted of an audited breakdown of 1992-93 expenses for the National Education Association (NEA) and NEA-Alaska, the parent units of KPEA, from which KPEA calculated the all-important ratio between chargeable and nonchargeable expenses which would then be applied toward the local KPEA dues to determine the appropriate local breakdown. KPESA sent the same notice to nonmember support staff.
Knight and Jefferson amended their respective complaints to include this subsequent mailing as an additional basis for liability. Both also sought certification of class actions. As of the date of the district court's decision, none of the Knight plaintiffs had paid any fee for the 1992-93 school year. Among the Jefferson plaintiffs, only Daniel Hastings had, and he is not before us.
In Knight, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of KPEA and the school district, holding that the KPEA's refund of monies received in response to the August letter mooted that issue, and that the November letter satisfied Hudson. The district court also held that KPEA's categorization of litigation expenses was not flawed, that the challenge to the use of an escrow fund to hold monies paid by challengers was moot, and that KPEA's indemnification of the school district for any legal liability incurred as a result of enforcing the collective bargaining agreement was not void as against public policy. In Jefferson, the district court relied upon the same analysis to reach the same results, except that the mootness ruling on the escrow issue did not apply to Hastings.
On September 11, 1992, AEA (through NEA-Alaska) sent a 230-page Hudson notice to teachers in the Anchorage School District. The notice did not include an audited AEA financial report, a breakdown of chargeable and nonchargeable expenses, or an audited breakdown of NEA-Alaska's chargeable and nonchargeable expenses. AEA later sent a supplemental notice that contained its audited financial statement.
Patterson and seven other teachers (Patterson) refused to pay the representation fee and sought to have the chargeability determination adjudicated in court. One of the teachers, Andrew Rabung, subsequently agreed to pay the full union membership fee when he was threatened with discharge. His subsequent efforts to withdraw that agreement were unavailing.
A different district judge of the District of Alaska held that the two mailings to the nonmembers failed to satisfy Hudson because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cnty. of L. A. v. L. A. Cnty. Emp. Relations Comm'n
...fee without providing a proper notice. ( UPTE, CWA Local 9119 (2005) PERB Dec. No. 1784–H; see also Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist. (9th Cir.1997) 131 F.3d 807, 817 [employer has no duty to ensure adequacy of union's Hudson notice].) Giving SEIU this contact information will ......
-
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc.
...for "policy considerations alone . . . unless exhaustion is consistent with congressional intent." Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 131 F.3d 807, 816 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Patsy, 457 U.S. at 513, 102 S.Ct. 1. Congressional Intent a. Statutory Language The ATCA simply provides......
-
Knox v. Cal. State Employees Ass'n, Local 1000, Serv. Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
...because it is required to base its agency fee calculation on audited financial statements. See Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 131 F.3d 807, 812-13 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 904, 118 S.Ct. 2060, 141 L.Ed.2d 138 (1998); Prescott v. County of El Dorado, 177 F.3d 110......
-
In re Coleman
...Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 850 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of reh'g, 312 F.3d 416 (9th Cir.2002); Knight v. Kenai Penninsula Borough Sch. Dist., 131 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir.1997); In re Dominelli, 788 F.2d 584, 585 (9th However, in Principal Life Insurance Co. v. Robinson, 394 F.3d 665 (......
-
Alaska Supreme Court, Alaska Court of Appeals, U.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.s. District Court for the District of Alaska Year in Review 1997
...1345 (9th Cir. 1997). [1069]See id. at 1349. [1070]See id. at 1348. [1071]See id. [1072]See id. at 1349. [1073]See id. at 1349-50. [1074] 131 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1997). [1075]See id. at 812-15; Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986). [1076]See Knight, 131 F.3d at 813-15. [1077......