Davenport v. Washington Education Association & Washington v. Washington Education Association (consolidated)
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission of Washington State (PDC) alleging that the Washington Educational Association (WEA), a state educational employees union, had violated Washington statute sec. 42.17.760. Section 760, which governs the way the union can use its agency shop fees (the fees paid by educational employees who are not union members), requires the WEA to obtain affirmative consent from nonunion employees for the use of their fees in political activity.
After the trial court ruled against the WEA, the court of appeals reversed, finding that section 760 was unconstitutional because it unduly burdoned the speech of the union. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, holding that section 760's presumption that all nonmembers objected to the use of their fees for political activity violated the speech rights of the union by imposing a costly administrative burden on the union. An opt-out procedure is a less restrictive constitutionally permissible alternative that would protect the rights of dissenting nonmembers.
Questions Presented:
Washington v. Washington Education Association:
Where state law does not prohibit the practice, collective bargaining agreements may contain a union security provision, which requires employees, who are not members of the union, to pay an agency shop fee to the union as a condition of employment. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1986), held that, to protect these nonmembers’ First Amendment
rights, the union is prohibited from using these fees to support its political agenda if the nonmember objects (opt-out). Wash. Rev. Code sec. 42.17.760 provides additional protection for nonmembers by requiring them to affirmatively consent (opt-in) before their fees may be used for political purposes. Does the requirement in Wash. Rev. Code sec. 42.17.760 that nonmembers must affirmatively consent (opt-in) before their fees may be used to support the union’s political agenda violate the union’s First Amendment rights?
Davenport v. Washington Education Association:
1. Do labor union officials have a First Amendment right to seize and use for politics the wages of employees who have chosen not to become union members?
2. Does a state campaign finance law that prohibits labor unions and their officials from seizing and using the wages of nonmembers for partisan political campaigns without obtaining the nonmembers' affirmative consent violate the First Amendment rights of labor unions?
