Robinson v. State of New Jersey
| Decision Date | 11 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-5750,Nos. 83-5403 and 83-5532,83-5569,83-5459,No. 83-5569,83-5563,AFL-CIO,Nos. 82-5698 and 83-5533,Nos. 82-5698,83-5403,83-5532,No. 83-5563,83-5533,82-5750,No. 83-5459,s. 82-5698 and 83-5533,s. 83-5403 and 83-5532,s. 82-5698 |
| Citation | 741 F.2d 598 |
| Parties | 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001 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 Indiv. Rutgers State University, Rutgers University, Board of Governors, Rutgers University, State Dept. of Higher Education, Mr. James A. Gormley, Director of Personnel and Indiv., Rutgers University (Camden), Christine Mowry, Director of Office of Employee Labor Relations and Indiv., Rutgers Council, AAUP and Ms. Sandra Walther, Executive Director Rutgers Council, American Association, Richard Laity, Chairman and Indiv., AAUP Legislative Relations Committee, AAUP and Irvin J. Spitzberg, Jr., General Secretary AAUP, Richard Peskin, President and Indiv., Rutgers Council of AAUP. 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 Indiv., Union County Education Association, Westfield Board of Education, Dr. L.J. Greene, Superintendent and Indiv., Robert Westkerna, Pascack Valley Regional Education Association, David T. Dierker, President and Indiv., Bergen County Education Association, Pascack Valley Regional Board of Education, Laurie Thorton, President and Indiv., Edison Township Board of Education, Aurora Bernard-Salit, President and Indiv., Middle Sex County Education Association, Maria Versocki, President and Indiv., Edison Township Board of Education, Charles A. Boyle, Superintendent, Ridgewood Education Association, Frank Sidoti, President and Indiv., Ridgewood Board of Education, Rosemar |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Jeffry A. Mintz (argued), Stein & Shapiro, Cherry Hill, N.J., Nelson R. Kieff (Argued), National Right to Work Legal, Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, Va., for Paul H. Robinson, et al.
Edward F. Ryan, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, N.J., for Rutgers, The State University of N.J.
Laurence Gold (Argued), James B. Coppess, Washington, D.C., for Communication Workers of America; Steven P. Weissman, Trenton, N.J., of counsel.
Robert H. Chanin (Argued), David M. Silberman, James J. Brudney, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., Cassel R. Ruhlman, Jr., Ruhlman & Butrym, Pennington, N.J., for Westfield Educ. Ass'n, et al.
Paul Schachter (Argued), Reinhardt & Schachter, P.C., Newark, N.J., for Rutgers Council for AAUP, Walther, Peskin & Laity.
Alfred E. Ramey, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., State of N.J., Trenton, N.J., for State of N.J.
Ann Franke (Argued), Lawrence White, Washington, D.C., for American Ass'n of University Professors; Ralph S. Spritzer Robert E. Anderson, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Public Employment Relations Com'n, Trenton, N.J., for James W. Mastriani.
Philadelphia, Pa., Ralph S. Brown, New Haven, Ct., of counsel.
Amy H. Rudolph, Sauer, Boyle, Dwyer & Canellis, Westfield, N.J., Jan Schlesinger, Hartman, Schlesinger, Schlosser, Faxon & Foy, Mount Holly, N.J., amicus curiae.
Before ADAMS, SLOVITER, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge. *
These consolidated appeals present two important questions posed by the representation fee arrangements created under the New Jersey public employee statute: 1 first, the permissibility under the First Amendment of the use of mandatory representation fees for lobbying activities by public employee unions; and, second, the extent of due process protections afforded to employees who object to the use of any portion of their fees to further the political and ideological stands of their bargaining representative.
The district court determined that the use of mandatory representation fees for lobbying activities by public employee unions was in conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and that the various escrow account procedures advanced by the defendant-unions were insufficient to protect the constitutional rights of non-consenting employees. Consequently, the district court enjoined the operation of the representation fee provision of the New Jersey Act and ordered that no fees be deducted from the salary of non-consenting employees. For the reasons developed below, we reverse the judgment of the district court, direct that the injunctions be withdrawn, and order that the matter be remanded for further proceedings.
In 1968, the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act granted state public employees the right to bargain collectively with the state employer. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.1 et seq. 2 A prime purpose of the Act was to promote the state's interest in the settlement of labor disputes and the prevention of work stoppages through negotiations between the state employer and a collective bargaining representative selected by the majority of employees. 3 See Caldwell-West Caldwell Ed. Ass'n v. Caldwell-West Bd. of Educ., 180 N.J.Super. 440, 435 A.2d 562, 567 (App.Div.1981). Under the terms of the Act, a public employee union may collect dues from those employees who choose to join the union; all other members of a bargaining unit are free not to contribute to the union's expenses in any form. Nevertheless, the Act
require[s] that a majority representative of public employees which has negotiated a labor agreement covering such employees to represent the interests of all employees in the bargaining unit, regardless of organizational membership, without discrimination. Non-members of the majority organization, therefore, enjoy virtually equal benefits and protections without sharing in the costs, incurred by collective negotiations, grievance representation, and other services.
Sponsor's Statement to Assembly Bill No. 688, February 9, 1978, quoted in Robinson v. State of New Jersey, 547 F.Supp. 1297, 1301 (D.N.J.1982); see N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 ().
This "free rider" problem was remedied by legislation in 1980. 4 The New Jersey statute was amended to allow a majority bargaining representative to collect a representation fee from all employees within an appropriate bargaining unit who had not joined the union. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.5(b) directed that the representation 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 only to its members, but in no event shall such fee exceed 85% of the regular membership dues, fees and assessments.
Under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.5(c), unions were empowered to use representation fee funds 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 employer.
Section 5.5(c) also requires that any public employee paying a representation fee
shall have the right to demand and receive from the majority representative ... a return of any part of that fee paid by him 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 to the cost of any other benefits available only to members of the majority representative.
Public employee unions are not allowed to avail themselves of a dues checkoff (the automatic deduction of representation fees from an employee's paycheck by the employer), until they have established the demand and return system required by stat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Bd., S
... ... PERB approved the inclusion in the service fee of payments to the association's state and national affiliates (CTA and NEA) for representational purposes. PERB also held that Cumero, ... den. (1986) 475 [49 Cal.3d 614] U.S. 1072, 106 S.Ct. 1388, 89 L.Ed.2d 613; see also Robinson v. State of New Jersey (3d Cir.1984) 741 F.2d 598, 604-610, cert. den. (1985) 469 U.S. 1228, 105 ... ...
-
Galda v. Rutgers, 84-5498
... ... situated, Appellants ... RUTGERS, The State University of New Jersey, Dr. Edward J ... Bloustein, Individually, and as President of Rutgers, ... not produce any evidence that would allow an advance proration of the mandatory fee, see Robinson v. New Jersey, 741 F.2d 598 (3d Cir.1984), and we have previously found the rebate procedures ... ...
-
Keller v. State Bar of California
... ... For example, in Robinson v. State of New Jersey (3rd Cir.1984) 741 F.2d 598, at page 609, the court said: "So long as the lobbying activities are pertinent to the duties of ... ...
- California v. U.S. Dep't of Labor