Page 4 - 2018 Janus Toolkit LG
P. 4

speak for all employees in collective bargaining.  Janus noted that a designation as exclusive representative “re-
        sults in a tremendous increase in the power” of the union.  Janus also noted that unions representing nonmembers
        even without collective agency fees furthered the union’s interests and not just the nonmembers’ interests because
        the union was able to keep “control of the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement.”

        In rejecting the argument that not requiring non-members to pay agency fees would result in a “free-rider” sys-
        tem in which non-union members could enjoy the benefits of union representation without shouldering the costs,
        the Court noted that non-members could potentially be required to pay for certain union services, such as union
        representation in disciplinary proceedings.

        NEXT STEPS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS


        1.  Stop agency fee deductions


        The Court’s decision in Janus is effective immediately, meaning employees who are non-members cannot be
        charged agency fees.  Accordingly, employers must stop deducting agency fees from the paychecks of public em-
        ployees.  Going forward, an employer may not deduct fees unless an employee clearly and affirmatively consents
        to the deduction before it is implemented.


        SB 866 creates a layer of potential complication because it modifies the law to require public employers to rely
        on the representations of the union regarding an employee’s deduction authorizations.  This likely leaves pub-
        lic agency employers with at least three potential options:  (1) stop agency fee deductions immediately without
        communication with union leadership; (2) stop the agency fee deductions after providing a notice to union lead-
        ership as to the employees who the public agency believes to be agency fee payers and whose deductions will be
        halted with the July paycheck; or (3) stop the fee deductions after the union and public employer agree to the list
        of employees whose fee deductions will be halted, and rely on the new provisions of SB 866 requiring the union to
        defend and indemnify the employer in the event a fee payer brings suit to recover fees deducted subsequent to
        the issuance of the Janus decision.


        To avoid future lawsuits, public agencies are encouraged to have their human resources and payroll departments
        work collaboratively with union leadership to identify employees who are agency fee payers and develop a strate-
        gy to ensure prompt compliance with Janus.  For many public school district employers, working closely with their
        county office of education will be critical to accurately updating payroll records to ensure employees are no longer
        charged agency fees going forward.


        2.  Implement a communication plan

        Public agency employers who have agency fee provisions in their union agreements should develop a commu-
        nication plan to address the likely questions that will come from employees and unions in the days and weeks
        following this decision.  Specifically, taking steps to identify a single point person to respond to questions regard-
        ing the impacts of the Janus decision will ensure cohesive and clear messaging and avoid the potential for man-
        agers and supervisors to inadvertently run afoul of laws prohibiting discouraging or deterring union membership.
        In developing these communication strategies regarding whether, and how, to communicate the Janus decision
        to employees, employers should remain neutral and mindful of applicable law, including SB 285, which prohibits
        employers from deterring or discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of a union,
        and SB 866, which restricts a public employer’s ability to communicate with employees about the Janus decision.

        Specifically, under SB 866, any “mass communication” sent to employees or applicants concerning their rights to
        join or support or refrain from joining or supporting their union requires a meet and confer process with the ap-


        Janus v. AFSCME Overview and Next Steps                                                    LozanoSmith.com
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9