Welcome to Union Station, our weekly newsletter that keeps you abreast of the legislation, national trends, and public debate surrounding public-sector union policy.
Ballotpedia has expanded its coverage of the coronavirus pandemic to keep readers updated on America's Path to Recovery. We're providing readers information on the varied and shifting efforts to manage the effect of the virus with a free daily email and comprehensive articles on our website. View the latest updates here.
MASSACHUSETTS STATE LEGISLATOR PROPOSES BILL GIVING LIABILITY PROTECTIONS TO UNIONS DURING COVID-19 OUTBREAK
On April 23, Sen. Paul Feeney (D) introduced S2700, which would grant liability protections to unions that advise their members of their right to refuse to work due to abnormally dangerous conditions.
What does the bill propose?
Section 2 of the bill proposes that "it shall be unlawful to file a civil action for damages against any employee organization or union for advising their bargaining unit members of their right to refuse to work because of an abnormally dangerous condition at the place of the employment."
The legislation would also grant liability protections to construction contractors and sub-contractors. It would take effect immediately upon passage and apply retroactively to any claims arising during the COVID-19 state of emergency, which was declared by Gov. Charlie Baker (R) on March 10.
What comes next?
Both the upper and lower chambers of the Massachusetts General Court are considering the bill simultaneously. The bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, where it is awaiting action.
Political context: Massachusetts has a divided government. Gov. Charlie Baker is a Republican. Democrats, meanwhile, have veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature.
Minnesota public-sector workers sue for refunds of previously paid union fees
On May 8, six Minnesota state workers filed two class action lawsuits in U.S. district court against their unions. The plaintiffs want the unions to refund an estimated $19 million in fees paid before the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision.
Who are the parties to the suits?
Brown v. AFSCME Council 5 (0:20-cv-01127):
- Plaintiffs: Eric Brown, a Department of Health employee; Jody Tuchtenhagen, a Department of Human Services Employee; and Debbie Schultz, a Department of Vehicle Services employee.
- Defendant: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 5.
- AFSCME Council 5 is a union representing more than 43,000 state and local government employees in Minnesota.
Fellows v. MAPE (0:20-cv-01128):
- Plaintiffs: Mark Fellows, a Department of Human Services employee; Catherine Wyatt, a former Department of Revenue employee; and Alicia Bonner, a Department of Employment and Economic Development employee.
- Representation: Greenberg Traurig; LLP; Liberty Justice Center; National Right to Work Foundation; Upper Midwest Law Center.
- Defendant: Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
- MAPE is a union representing about 12,500 professional public-sector employees.
What is at issue, and what comes next?
In both suits, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue the unions illegally compelled employees within their bargaining units to pay union fees. They argue that, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Harris v. Quinn in 2014, the unions "should have known that [their] agency fee seizures may violate public employees' First Amendment rights." In Harris v. Quinn, the court struck down an Illinois statute compelling a specific class of home healthcare workers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union.
The cases are both pending adjudication in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
|
