Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. Allen

Background

Railway employees at Southern were required by a union-shop agreement (authorized by the Railway Labor Act) to pay regular dues and fees to their unions. Some employees who were not union members sued after a jury found that part of those collected funds had been used for political activities—like supporting or opposing laws, influencing elections, and making campaign contributions—and the trial court issued an injunction stopping enforcement of the agreement against those employees.

Reasoning

The Court relied on its earlier decision in International Assn. of Machinists v. Street. It said an employee who objects to a union’s political spending must clearly tell the union of that objection; mere silence does not create a right to relief. The Court also held that dissenting employees cannot stop paying the required dues while the case is decided. To get money back or a change in future payments, an employee must prove the union used exacted funds for political purposes, and the union must prove what share of its total budget those political expenditures represent.

Real world impact

On remand the courts must determine which expenditures are political and what percentage of the union’s total spending they are. If an employee proves wrongful political spending, the Court said the proper remedy is a refund of that proportional amount and a reduction of future dues by the same share. The opinion encourages unions to adopt internal procedures or formulas to allow dissenters to opt out of political spending, so disputes can be settled without long litigation.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan agreed in part but dissented insofar as he would dismiss the case entirely, arguing employees must identify particular candidates or issues and prove dues were actually used for those specific political purposes. Justice Black concurred in the judgment.