Workers can’t get public employee union dues retroactively, judge rules

In two separate cases last week, a federal judge ruled workers cannot retroactively demand repayment of past public employee union dues following the U.S. Supreme Court's Janus decision.

Eastern District Judge William B. Shubb dismissed the plaintiffs' cases in Hamidi v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, 14CV00319 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 31, 2014); and Hernandez v. AFSCME California, 18CV02419 (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 31, 2018).

Both matters were filed on behalf of employees of the state who sought return of so-called agency fees meant to compensate the union for collective bargaining on behalf of workers who declined to join the union.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year such fees violated the First Amendment rights of workers who did not support the union or political activities undertaken with these dues. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 2018 DJDAR 6308. The Hamidi case actually preceded the ruling, but an earlier ruling was vacated pending the outcome of Janus.

Shubb found the plaintiffs lacked a sufficient legal theory to mandate the return of past dues, and the dues were collected "in good faith" by unions at the time.

"In the agency fees context, not only did unions have authorization under state statute, but the practice of collecting agency fees in this manner had been upheld for decades as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court," Shubb wrote in his June 20 ruling in Hernandez.

He went on to note the plaintiffs made their "demand for a refund as an equitable claim for restitution rather than a legal claim for damages."

But the judge wrote that this would demand a "legal remedy, not an equitable one" in order to recoup money from a union's general fund, noting "the recoupment of such a large sum of money would have potentially disruptive consequences that could threaten the operations of unions and significantly deplete their treasuries."

Shubb also wrote that the plaintiffs "received some benefits from the fees they paid," something the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in its ruling. He added "plaintiffs do not propose to give back the benefits that the union's efforts bestowed on them," citing Gilpin v. AFSCME, 875 F.2d 1310, 1316 (7th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiffs' counsel in each case did not return calls seeking comment by press time.