Connell

Cummings v. Connell

Good Law
316 F.3d 886
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 9, 2003Nos. 01-16735, 01-16819, 01-17445, 01-17450California5,616 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawkins, J.

It is settled law that a union may charge nonunion employees certain fees to pay for their “fair share” of the union’s cost of negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 , 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). In Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 310 , 106 S.Ct. 1066 , 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986), the Supreme Court established certain safeguards in connection with the collection of such fees, including “an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee.” This appeal involves the adequacy of the June 1999 “Hudson notice” prepared by the California State Employees Association (the “Union”).

The Union is the exclusive representative for nine bargaining units of California state employees. After several years without collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) in place, in March 1999, the Union entered into CBAs allowing the state employer to deduct “fair share” fees from plaintiffs’ paychecks and forward the funds to the Union. In April 1999, the Union sent a notice to nonmembers informing them of the “fair share” deductions. The state, through its controller (defendant Kathleen Connell), commenced…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.