Unions that used a state law which was later declared to be unconstitutional to take millions of dollars from non-union home caregivers who were not employed by the state should not be exposed to the risk of a class action lawsuit to force the union to refund those unconstitutional fees, Illinois’ governor and attorneys for a union said in briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
Arguments have begun to be filed in the latest try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to order an Illinois labor union to refund potentially tens of millions in fees the court has already declared were unconstitutionally collected.
A federal judge has rejected the attempt by a union to win a court order requiring a pension fund for Illinois local governmental workers to take the political views of companies into consideration when investing public pension funds, as the judge said the Illinois Municipal Retirement Funds’ current practices don’t violate the First Amendment rights of union members.
Labor unions representing public employees shouldn’t need to refund fees they unconstitutionally collected from non-union employees, because they were acting in “good faith,” relying on state laws and prior legal precedent, a federal judge has ruled.
A labor union has won the right to move forward with a unique challenge that emerged in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year on whether non-union workers should pay fair share fees for representation. If it succeeds, the lawsuit could upset management-labor relations for government employers, a labor lawyer says.
A labor union will be allowed to continue to press its claims a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling should mean it and other labor unions cannot be forced under state law to represent non-union state workers who choose not to pay union fees.
A federal judge has refused unions’ request to reconsider his decision to toss their lawsuit, arguing a Supreme Court decision allowing non-union workers to stop paying compulsory fees to unions should also be read to prohibit local governments from using taxes to fund organizations which lobby in favor of policies opposed by labor unions.
Two unions have asked a federal judge to reconsider his decision tossing their attempt to force the village of Lincolnshire to stop paying dues to the Illinois Municipal League because the association of Illinois cities and villages lobbies in favor of policies union members may oppose.
A federal appeals panel in Chicago has rejected the request by a group of home caregivers for a new hearing to reconsider the courts’ prior decisions denying them the opportunity to bring a class action to recover nearly $32 million they accuse a union of unconstitutionally taking from them under a state law invalidated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
A federal judge has rejected an attempt by unions to force the village of Lincolnshire to stop paying dues to the Illinois Municipal League because the association of Illinois cities and villages lobbies in favor of policies union members may oppose.
A federal appeals panel in Chicago has again rejected an attempt by a group of home caregivers to bring a class action lawsuit against the labor union they say used an Illinois state law to unconstitutionally grab $32 million in fees from their pay, as the judges said the decision holds up even when reevaluated in light of a recent Supreme Court decision further restricting unions’ abilities to force non-union public workers to pay such fees.
A federal judge has determined a state employee — notable for his public anti-union stances — can’t intervene on behalf of the state in a lawsuit it faces from a union leader asking courts to declare unions aren’t obligated to represent employees who refuse to pay membership dues.
New Jersey has enacted a new law allowing striking workers to collect unemployment benefits during a labor dispute. But an attorney monitoring such developments has heard no rumblings similar legislation is imminent in other states dominated by Democrats, such as Illinois.
Saying Illinois’ attorney general’s defense is “inadequate” and is “bordering on malpractice,” an Illinois state employee who factored in the court action that led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down rules requiring non-union workers to pay fees to unions has again jumped into a federal court action, this time asking a judge to allow his legal team to defend the state against a union’s attempt to secure a court order striking down labor laws requiring them to represent all workers in a collective bargaining unit.
Saying governments are different from labor unions and other private organizations, a north suburban village and an organization that lobbies on behalf of Illinois city and village governments has asked a federal judge to dismiss a union-backed lawsuit asserting the rights of union members are violated by local governments which use tax money to fund lobbyists to seek reforms opposed by unions.
Compelling non-union government workers to pay so-called “fair share fees” to unions they do not wish to join violates the First Amendment speech rights of non-union workers and is unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, finding in favor of an Illinois state worker who had sued to end the fees, also known as agency fees, in Illinois and across the country.
A labor grievance against Cook County won’t avoid its day in court after a state appeals panel said a “Last Chance Agreement” between the county and a fired worker allows the county to sidestep a union collective bargaining agreement, and thus nixes the union’s attempt to send the matter to arbitration.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is facing yet another lawsuit over his handling of employee terminations before an illegally constituted merit board, as two fired Cook County deputies argue the sheriff has lost his chance to fire them and 230 other terminated sheriff’s officers, even after the board was reconstituted under new legislation.
In advance of what they expect to be a stinging defeat for labor unions at the U.S. Supreme Court, a prominent Illinois union has countered with a suit of its own, claiming, if the court finds unions can be barred from forcing non-union workers to pay fees to the union for collective bargaining, so, too, the unions can’t be forced to include those workers in the deals they cut with government officials.
