Dianne Knox v. California State Employees Association

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIANNE KNOX; WILLIAM L. 

BLAYLOCK; ROBERT A. CONOVER;

EDWARD L. DOBROWOLSKI, JR.;

KARYN GIL; THOMAS JACOB HASS;

PATRICK JOHNSON; JON JUMPER, On Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Seek to Represent, Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 08-16645 v. D.C. No.

CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES  2:05-CV-02198-

MCE-KJM

ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1000, SERVICE

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, OPINION

AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendant-Appellant, and STEVE WESTLY, Controller, State of California, Defendant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed December 10, 2010

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, David R. Thompson and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

19875 19876 KNOX v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Opinion by Judge Thomas; Dissent by Judge Wallace 19878 KNOX v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

COUNSEL

Jeffrey B. Demain, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California, for the…

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge WALLACE.

OPINION

This appeal presents the question of whether a union is required, pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 , 106 S.Ct. 1066 , 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986), in addition to an annual fee notice to nonmembers, to send a second notice when adopting a temporary, mid-term fee increase. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that a second notice is not required, and we reverse the judgment of the district court.

I

A

Congress has long recognized the “important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations.” Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 , 129 S.Ct. 798, 803 , 172 L.Ed.2d 552 (2009) (quoting Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 222 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 , 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977)). The Supreme Court has underscored this Congressional policy by enforcing the right of a union, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees, to require nonunion employees to pay a fair share of the union’s costs. Ellis v. Bhd. of Ry., Airline and S.S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, 466 U.S. 435, 448 , 104 S.Ct. 1883 , 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984). However,…

dissenting:

I dissent from the majority’s opinion because it is not faithful to the principles guiding the Court’s decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 , 106 S.Ct. 1066 , 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986). The majority begins from an inaccurate account of the interests at stake, and applies the procedures set forth in Hudson without due attention to the distinguishing facts of this case. The result is contrary to well-established First Amendment principles.

I.

I begin with the legal authorization for the agency shop system because it provides the framework for my evaluation of the issues in this case, and because I am of the view that the majority’s opinion presents an incomplete account of the relevant legal principles.

A.

The National Labor Relations Act allows the states to regulate their labor relationships with public sector employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 152 (2). Many states, including California, allow public-sector unions and government employers to enter into “agency-shop” arrangements. Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507, 511 , 111 S.Ct. 1950 , 114 L.Ed.2d 572 (1991); Cal. Gov’t *1124 Code § 3502.5(a). Defendant SEIU Local 1000 (Union) is the…