This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
Union members can be required to put in writing their questions about when they can stop having union dues deducted from their pay, a federal court in Washington ruled May 16 ( Ruisi v. NLRB , 2017 BL 162684, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1031, 5/16/17 ).
The decision shows that the National Labor Relations Board and the courts may allow unions some discretion in fielding employee questions about their union dues and obligations.
Two employees of Host International argued Culinary Workers Local 226 and Bartenders Local 165 in Las Vegas could easily and quickly provide the dates over the phone and should have done so.
However, the NLRB and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the unions lawfully required members to request such information in writing.
Employees Natalie Ruisi and Michael Peluso signed dues checkoff authorizations that were to remain in effect unless the employee sent written notice to the employer and union during a 15-day interval after an anniversary of the member’s signing.
Both employees inquired about their anniversary dates, but a union official told them they could only obtain the dates by making written requests.
The employees filed unfair labor practice charges, but an administrative law judge and the NLRB found refusing to provide the information by phone did not violate the unions’ duty to fairly represent employees.
Writing for the appeals court, Judge Harry T. Edwards said the union policy was justified by concerns about the privacy of members and administrative efficiency. “It can hardly be doubted that the Union has a legitimate interest in verifying the identity of the requestor of such information,” he said.
The employees had a narrow window of time within which to revoke their dues checkoff authorizations, but the court said that didn’t make the policy unlawful. Even “if the Union was required to disclose information over the telephone,” Edwards wrote, “some employees would still miss the fifteen-day cut-off date if they called too late.”
Stating the evidence did not show the unions acted arbitrarily or in bad faith, Edwards said the “policy may be annoying to some, but it certainly cannot be seen to violate the duty of fair representation.”
Ruisi and Peluso were represented by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc. Patrick Semmens, the group’s vice president, disagreed with the ruling.
“Union officials’ policy in this case was clearly designed to be an additional hurdle for employees’ attempting to exercise their right to cut off all dues payments,” Semmens told Bloomberg BNA in a May 16 email. “Unfortunately for the rights of individual workers,” he said, “the NLRB looked the other way and the court has now deferred to the Board’s misguided conclusion.”
Judges Brett M. Kavanaugh and Robert Leon Wilkins joined in the court’s opinion.
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorney Aaron B. Solem in Springfield, Va., argued for the employees. NLRB attorney Kyle A. deCant in Washington argued for the board.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lawrence E. Dubé in Washington at ldube@bna.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Peggy Aulino at maulino@bna.com; Terence Hyland at thyland@bna.com; Christopher Opfer at copfer@bna.com
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/NATALIE_RUISI_AND_MICHAEL_PELUSO_PETITIONERS_v_NATIONAL_LABOR_REL.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)