Category: Court Decisions

The Supreme Court has posted a transcript of the oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. (Click here.) Here are some highlights. I tried to focus on arguments and comments that have not already been highlighted in the press:

Is it permissible to allow the union to be the exclusive representative so that nobody else is at the bargaining table? (Justice Ginsberg to Petitioners’ Counsel). Petitioners’ position is that although having an exclusive representative impinges on them because it prohibits them from individually negotiating with the employer, it’s permissible because of the need for an exclusive representative.

Oral argument was held today before the United State Supreme Court (Court) in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Friedrichs). According to news reports, it seems almost a certainty that the Court will overturn its 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and hold that compulsory “agency shop” or “fair share” fees are unconstitutional.  Justice Kennedy, a deciding vote in many close cases, reportedly led much of the criticism against California’s agency fee law. In response to the argument that agency fees are necessary to avoid “free riders,” Justice Kennedy replied that compulsory agency fees allow unions to make employees “compelled riders.” There was also some hope that Justice Scalia might be a surprise vote in favor of keeping Abood. But according to early news reports, he was just as hostile to agency fees as Justice Kennedy. “Everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition,” said Justice Scalia.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito also made comments that appeared to be hostile to agency fees.  As usual Justice Thomas was silent but it’s hard to imagine that he would be in favor of agency fees.  Thus, it appears that there are five votes firmly in favor of overturning Abood.

County of Riverside v. PERB (SEIU Local 721) (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1305661)

One of the most interesting pieces of litigation going on right now is PERB’s attempt to force Riverside County to go to factfinding over effects bargaining.  Last year I wrote about how PERB filed an anti-SLAPP motion against the County for challenging PERB’s factfinding order.  (Click here for that post)  The court—properly, in my opinion—dismissed PERB’s anti-SLAPP motion.  Now we have the court’s order on the County’s attorneys’ fees motion.