|
''Knox v. SEIU'' is a US constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that Diana Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 The State Worker: U.S. Supreme Court rules against SEIU Local 1000 in fee case )〕 In a tighter 5-4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to "opt in" to special fees.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 Supreme Court Union Ruling, Knox v. SEIU, Could Cut Back Labor's Political Speech )〕 ==Background== Under ''Abood v. Detroit Board of Education'' (1977) states may allow unions to charge nonmember workers “fair share” fees to prevent the free rider problem of nonmembers benefiting from a union’s collective bargaining gains. Nonmembers must annually opt out of paying full union membership dues after the union sends a ''Hudson'' notice of what portion of the dues is chargeable to collective bargaining costs.〔''Chicago School Teachers Union v. Hudson'', 475 U.S. 292 (1986)〕 California is one of the states that allow for such an “agency shop”. Arnold Schwarzenegger won a recall election against California Governor Gray Davis in November 2003. Governor Schwarzenegger then proposed a broad fiscal reform agenda and called a 2005 special election to pass several ballot proposition and initiative constitutional amendments.〔(Richard Hasen, Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1501 (2009). )〕 One of these, Proposition 75 would have required union nonmembers to affirmatively opt into paying full union dues instead of needing to opt out.〔https://igs.berkeley.edu/library/elections/proposition-75〕 Service Employees International Union Local 1000 is the largest labor union in California, with bargaining rights for half of all California state employees.〔http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/MOU_Fiscal/MOU-Fiscal-Local-1000-062113.pdf〕 In June 2005 SEIU sent out its annual ''Hudson'' notice, giving nonmembers thirty days to opt out of union dues and only pay a fair share fee.〔(Knox v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). )〕 Shortly after the opt out deadline expired SEIU mailed a notice to all workers announcing an emergency fee to build a “Political Fight Back Fund”.〔Knox v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).〕 The fee was then automatically deducted from all workers’ subsequent paychecks until after the 2006 California gubernatorial election.〔Knox v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).〕 On November 1, 2005 plaintiff state employees filed a class action lawsuit in Sacramento Federal District Court alleging SEIU’s emergency fee compelled plaintiffs speech in violation of the First Amendment.〔Knox v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).〕 SEIU’s Political Fight Back Fund along with an alliance of other public sector unions expended $24 million campaigning against Schwarzenegger's fiscal reform, with the California Teachers Association expending an additional $56 million and going so far as to mortgage its Sacramento headquarters to fund more campaign spending.〔http://www.followthemoney.org/election-overview?s=CA&y=2005〕 Schwarzenegger likewise spent nearly $8 million of his own fortune campaigning.〔http://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?d-eid=2138468&y=2005〕 The tenor was highly divisive, with Schwarzenegger calling his opponents “stooges” and at one point Warren Beatty leading a bus full of public employees to follow the governor and shout down his events. Proposition 75 and all Governor Schwarzenegger’s other fiscal reform agenda initiatives were defeated by wide margins.〔(Richard Hasen, Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1501 (2009). )〕 It had been the most expensive election in California history. As the results came out in Sacramento a public union boss waived a broom over his head while state employees chanted “sweep, sweep, sweep”. In March 2008 District Court Judge Morrison England granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment against SEIU, finding it “hard to imagine” a clearer example of political purposes than when actually spending funds on an election campaign. On appeal the Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded with an order to grant summery judgment against plaintiffs, with former Chief Judge J. Clifford Wallace authoring a lengthy dissent. Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and the petition was granted.〔(Ross Runkel, When union fees go up, must a “Hudson notice” go out?, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 5, 2012, 10:01 AM) )〕 Plaintiffs then filed their opening brief. Instead of filing a reply brief, SEIU mailed a ten-page booklet to the 28,000 plaintiffs offering terms and conditions for a full refund, even including a $1 bill.〔(Lyle Denniston, Granted case challenged as moot, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 25, 2011, 5:16 PM) )〕 SEIU then moved to dismiss the case as moot. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|