Robinson v. State of N.J.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-5669,No. 82-1118,No. 82-3443,No. 82-1119,82-1118,82-1119,82-3443,85-5669 |
| Citation | 806 F.2d 442 |
| Parties | 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3193, 55 USLW 2343 Paul H. ROBINSON, Clifford Owens, Paul B. Kelly, Allan Roth, Calvin W. Corman, Earl Maltz, Elihu Abrahams, Arnold Glass, Charles W. Uptom, Alex W. Wypyszinski, Michael Crew, Harold Zapolsky and Jackson Toby v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Thomas H. Kean, Governor, James W. Mastriani, Chairman, Public Employment Relations Commission, Edward J. Bloustein, President and Individually, Rutgers State University, Rutgers University, Rutgers University, Board of Governors, State Dept. of Higher Education, Mr. James A. Gormley, Director of Personnel and Individually, Rutgers University (Camden), Christine Mowry, Director of Office of Employee Labor Relations & Ind., Rutgers Council, AAUP and Ms. Sandra Walther, Executive Director, Rutgers Council, American Association, Richard Laity, Chairman, and Individually, AAUP Legislative Relations Committee, AAUP and Irvin J. Spitzberg, Jr., General Secretary AAUP, Richard Peskin, President and Individually, Rutgers Council of AAUP (D.C.Civil). Joseph W. ANTONACCI, Meveril Jones, Thomas Gay, John Russell, Richard H. Trexler, A. William Onder, Leon Matelski, Edward Jakubco, Mrs. Dorothy Gray and William F. Gray v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Thomas H. Kean, Governor, James W. Mastriani, Chairman, Public Employment Relations Commission, Westfield Education Association, Sally Vejnoska, President and Individually, Union County Education Association, Westfield Board of Education, Dr. L.F. Greene, Superintendent and Individually, Robert Westkerna, Pascack Valley Regional Education Association, David T. Dierker, President and Individually, Bergen County Education Association, Pascack Valley Regional Board of Education, Mrs. Laurie Thorton, President and Individually, Edison Township Board of Education, Aurora Bernard-Salit, President and Individually, Middlesex County Education Association, Varia Versocki, President and Individually, Edison Township Board of Education, Charles A. Boyle, Superintendent, Ridgewood Educat |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Hugh L. Reilly (argued), National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, Va., Jeffry A. Mintz, Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson, Cherry Hill, N.J., for appellants.
James B. Coppess, Adair, Scanlon & McHugh, Washington, D.C., Ann H. Franke, American Association of University Professors, Washington, D.C., Robert H. Chanin, Bruce R. Lerner, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., Paul Schachter, Reinhardt & Schachter, Newark, N.J., Laurence Gold (argued), Washington, D.C., Steven P. Weissman, Trenton, N.J., Richard A. Friedman, Ruhlman, Butrym & Friedman, Pennington, N.J., of counsel), for appellee.
Before ADAMS, HIGGINBOTHAM and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
This case presents a constitutional challenge to the 1979 amendment of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act ("the Act"), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.1 et seq., which allows public employers and public employee unions to include in collective bargaining agreements a requirement that employees who do not join the union must pay a representation fee in lieu of union dues in order to share in the costs of collective bargaining. Appellants, public employees in New Jersey who choose not to become union members, argue that the Act violates their first amendment right not to be required to support political positions with which they disagree.
Public employees in New Jersey have had the right to bargain collectively with the state as employer since 1968. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. Because public employee unions are required to represent the interests of all members of the bargaining unit, those workers who do not join such unions would, in the absence of some special arrangement, receive the benefits of collective bargaining without sharing in its costs. To ameliorate this situation, legislation was enacted in 1979 allowing public employers and public employee unions to provide in collective bargaining agreements that employees who do not join the union must pay a representation fee in lieu of union dues. See Sponsor's Statement to L.1979, c. 477, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.5 to 5.9. The Act sets a limit on the amount of the representation fee that may be collected, stating that the fee
shall be in an amount equivalent to the regular membership dues, initiation fees and assessments charged by the majority representative to its own members less the cost of benefits financed through the dues, fees and assessments and available to or benefitting only its members, but in no event shall such fee exceed 85% of the regular membership dues, fees and assessments.
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.5(b). The Act further refines this formula by allowing fees to be exacted for
the costs of support of lobbying activities designed to foster policy goals in collective negotiations and contract administration or to secure for the employees represented advantages in wages, hours, and other conditions of employment in addition to those secured through collective negotiations with the public employer.
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.5(c).
The legislation anticipates that at times unions may collect more in representation fees than they are entitled to under the foregoing provisions, and that some workers may object to being required to pay such overages. It therefore establishes a "demand and return" system, which offers such workers the right to receive a refund in the amount of the overcharge. The refund is limited to that part of the fee paid
which represents the employee's additional pro rata share of expenditures by the majority representative that is either in aid of activities or causes of a partisan political or ideological nature only incidentally related to the terms and conditions of employment or applied toward the cost of any other benefits available only to members of the majority representative.
Id. The demand and return system must include a procedure "by which persons who pay a representation fee in lieu of dues may obtain review of the amount returned through full and fair proceedings placing the burden of proof on the majority representative." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.6. An employee who is dissatisfied with this review arrangement is entitled to appeal to a board consisting of three members appointed by the Governor. The membership of the appeal board is prescribed:
Of such members, one shall be representative of public employers, one shall be representative of public employee organizations and one, as chairman, who shall represent the interest of the public as a strictly impartial member not having had more than a casual association or relationship with any public employers, public employer organizations or public employee organizations in the 10 years prior to appointment.
Appellants here, public employees who are not union members, initially challenged various aspects of the Act on constitutional grounds in three separate lawsuits. Initially, the district court found that the Act violates the first amendment by allowing representation fees to be used to support lobbying by the union in furtherance of policy goals not directly related to collective bargaining. It also held that a demand and return system of the sort authorized by the Act cannot adequately protect the first amendment rights of dissenting employees, and that the demand and return procedures established in the collective bargaining agreements in question were so unwieldy as to infringe the appellants' right to due process. The district court entered injunctions against the collection of all representation fees from objecting employees. Robinson v. New Jersey, 547 F.Supp. 1297 (D.N.J.1982); Olsen v. Communications Workers of America, 559 F.Supp. 754 (D.N.J.1983); Robinson v. New Jersey, 565 F.Supp. 942 (D.N.J.1983).
The consolidated cases were appealed to this Court, which reversed the district court. In Robinson v. New Jersey, 741 F.2d 598 (3d Cir.1984), we held that the first amendment is not abridged either by the Act's allowance of the use of representation fees to finance lobbying of the sort disapproved by the district court or by the demand and return scheme. Id. at 609-12. We further held that the demand and return systems implemented by the defendant unions would be susceptible to constitutional challenge only if in practice they allowed the union to expend representation fee funds for prohibited purposes. Finally, we remanded to the district court for the necessary factfinding. Id. at 612-14.
On remand, the district court upheld the Act. It rejected the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. City of Pittsburgh
... ... Hohe v. Casey, 956 F.2d 399, 404 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Robinson v. New Jersey, 806 F.2d 442, 446 (3d Cir.1986); Members of the City Council v. Taxpayers for ... More recently, the Court has suggested that the bar may be slightly lower. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 1190, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 ... ...
-
Mosley v. City Of Pittsburgh Pub. Sch. Dist.
... ... 1331. In addition, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) ... Casey, 956 F.2d 399, 404 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting Robinson v. New Jersey, 806 F.2d 442, 446 (3d Cir.1986))) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court of ... ...
-
Weissman v. Fruchtman, 83 Civ. 8958(PKL).
...may be applied unconstitutionally, but only if it cannot be applied consistently with the Constitution." Robinson v. State of New Jersey, 806 F.2d 442, 446 (3d Cir.1986) (emphasis in The other context in which a facial challenge may be permitted is where the statute "seeks to prohibit such ......
-
Contractors Ass'n of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 90-1295
... ... Ordinance as contrary to the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions and federal and state statutes guaranteeing them, inter alia, equal protection of the laws. The City filed an answer as ... , but only if it cannot be applied consistently with the Constitution.' " (quoting Robinson v. New Jersey, 806 F.2d 442, 446 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied 481 U.S. 1070, 107 S.Ct. 2463, 95 ... ...