Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn

Background

A union and an employer signed a collective bargaining agreement that required employees who did not join the union to pay initial and monthly service fees. Some nonunion employees sued in a Florida state court asking the court to declare the clause illegal, to stop its enforcement, and to require an accounting. The Florida Supreme Court held that the clause violated the State’s "right to work" provision and that state courts could provide a remedy.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Florida courts, rather than only the National Labor Relations Board, could enforce the State’s ban on agency-shop clauses. The opinion explains that the federal Taft-Hartley Act allows some union-security arrangements under §8(a)(3) but also contains §14(b), which says federal law should not be read to authorize such agreements in States that prohibit them. The Court relied on that text and legislative history to conclude Congress meant to leave States free to forbid and enforce bans on these clauses. Because Congress expressly preserved State power here, federal preemption and exclusive federal enforcement do not bar state courts from acting.

Real world impact

The ruling means state courts can invalidate and provide remedies against negotiated contract clauses that a State’s law forbids. Examples in the opinion include injunctions, accounting, reinstatement, and back pay as possible state-law remedies. The decision leaves room for many different state-by-state outcomes, since §14(b) permits each State to decide whether such compulsory fee arrangements are allowed.