Ellis v. Railway Clerks
466 U.S. 435 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Railway Labor Act does not authorize a union to expend compelled agency fees from objecting employees on activities unrelated to its duties as an exclusive bargaining representative, such as general organizing efforts or litigation not directly concerning the bargaining unit. A pure rebate scheme for refunding impermissibly collected fees is statutorily inadequate; an advance reduction of dues or use of an interest-bearing escrow account are acceptable alternatives.
Facts:
- In 1971, the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) and Western Airlines had a union shop agreement, which required all clerical employees to either join the union or pay agency fees equal to members' dues as a condition of continued employment.
- Howard Ellis and other clerical employees of Western Airlines (Petitioners) were compelled to pay these agency fees.
- Petitioners objected to their fees being used for purposes other than negotiating and administering their collective bargaining agreement.
- BRAC used a portion of the compelled fees to fund six specific activities: its quadrennial Grand Lodge convention, union social activities, publications, general organizing efforts to recruit new members outside the bargaining unit, litigation not directly involving the Western Airlines unit, and a death benefits program.
- For expenditures on political and ideological causes, BRAC utilized a rebate program where it collected full dues from all employees and, months later, refunded the pro rata share of those expenditures to objecting employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Ellis and other employees (Petitioners) sued the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the petitioners on liability, holding that the six challenged expenditures were 'non-collective bargaining activities' that could not be funded by objectors' dues.
- After a damages trial, the District Court upheld the union's rebate program for political activities as a good-faith effort but ordered refunds for the other non-chargeable activities and implemented a future dues-reduction scheme.
- The union appealed and the employees cross-appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in large part, holding that the union's rebate plan was adequate and that all six challenged expenditures were sufficiently germane to the union’s collective bargaining work to be chargeable to objecting employees.
- The employees (Petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Railway Labor Act permit an interstate carrier's union, over an employee's objection, to use compelled agency fees to fund its quadrennial convention, social activities, publications, general organizing efforts, litigation not directly connected to the bargaining unit, and death benefits, and is a pure rebate program an adequate procedure for refunding fees used for political or ideological causes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the Railway Labor Act does not permit a union to use compulsory fees for all of these activities, nor is a pure rebate scheme a valid method of collection. The test for whether an expenditure is chargeable to objecting employees is whether it is necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Applying this test, the Court finds conventions, social activities, and publications (related to chargeable activities) are permissible expenses. However, general organizing efforts and litigation not directly related to the bargaining unit are not chargeable because their connection to collective bargaining is too attenuated and they fall outside the 'free-rider' rationale that justifies the union shop. Furthermore, a pure rebate scheme is statutorily inadequate because it constitutes an involuntary, interest-free loan from the employee to the union for purposes to which the employee objects; acceptable alternatives like advance dues reductions or interest-bearing escrow accounts must be used.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Powell
No, and the majority is incorrect to conclude that the entire cost of the union's quadrennial convention is chargeable to dissenting employees. While conventions are necessary for core union functions, they are also heavily used for political activities, such as featuring speeches by prominent politicians. The union failed to meet its burden of showing that these political components were 'necessarily or reasonably incurred' for collective bargaining. Therefore, the union should be required to identify the costs of these political activities and deduct them from the fees charged to objecting employees, just as it does for political content in its publications. Compelling employees to fund these political aspects of the convention raises serious First Amendment concerns that the majority dismisses too summarily.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the 'germaneness' standard for union agency fees, providing the first detailed, categorical analysis of which specific union expenses are chargeable to objecting non-members. By invalidating pure rebate schemes, the Court established a higher procedural standard for protecting dissenters' funds, requiring unions to use methods that prevent the temporary use of funds for impermissible purposes. This case created a practical framework that governed agency fee litigation under both the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act for decades, forcing unions to re-evaluate their accounting and collection procedures and providing clearer guidance for lower courts.
Unlock the full brief for Ellis v. Railway Clerks