Responding to the Janus vs. AFSCME Decision
Responding to the Janus vs. AFSCME Decision: How to Address the Immediate and Long-Term Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling that struck down over 40 years of precedent supporting the agency fees paid by all employees to support their union’s activities. In a decision divided along ideological lines, the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the labor relations landscape. The Court made clear that requiring non-union public employees to pay mandatory agency fees is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are many ramifications to this decision. The most immediate impact is that public agencies may not facilitate a union’s collection of agency fees from a non-member without that employee’s express consent. Therefore, public agencies are immediately prohibited from automatically deducting agency fees from the paychecks of employees.
This webinar will provide you with concrete and practical strategies to manage labor relations in your entity in the aftermath of this ground-breaking decision. Join us for this special webcast, where we will cover:
- A comprehensive analysis of the legal and practical impact of the Janus decision on labor relations in the public-sector workplace;
- What to do with July payroll: Review your payroll systems and each collective bargaining agreement, paying particular attention to provisions related to union fees and wage deductions.
- Tips for developing an action plan to coordinate internally with your human resources teams and payroll departments.
- How to anticipate and address inquiries from employees regarding issues, such as how to withdraw from the labor organization or how to revoke dues and/or agency fee authorizations.
- How to develop a communication plan that facilitates compliance with the SCOTUS decision, while still complying California laws presenting significant challenges to any communication plan, including:
- SB 285, which prohibits employers from discouraging or deterring union membership; and
- SB 866, which restricts a public employer’s ability to communicate with employees concerning their rights to join/support/refrain from unions. Any communication sent to employees regarding this ruling will likely fall under SB 866 restrictions, and therefore requires the public employer to “meet and confer with the [union] representative concerning the content of the communication.”
- Necessary steps to assure that your communication plan with both employees and the union complies with the restrictions imposed by SB 866, in light of the imperative to immediately determine the best approach to stopping with the July paycheck the deductions for any employee who is an agency fee payer. Then, agencies must develop an approach to reaching agreement with union leadership to identify employees whose fee deductions will be stopped and a method for obtaining an express authorization by each employee before making future payroll deductions.
- A forward-looking analysis of the longer-term impact of the Janus decision on the range of personnel actions and decisions that include union representation of their members:
- Why this decision has no impact on public employee union representatives’ obligations to represent their members in key personnel matters, such as investigatory interviews, disciplinary actions, interactive process meetings to address reasonable accommodations, and more.
- Impact on HR-related communications with union representatives in this context.
- A preliminary look at the longer-term impact on labor-management negotiations.
The webcast materials will include a comprehensive handout, with key legal and practical information and checklists for communication plans and other advance planning on short term, intermediate term, and long-term labor relations activities.
Need More Info or Help?
We hope you can join us, feel free to contact Doug McGill for more details.