Union fees may revive legal fight against collective bargaining

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Recent labor agreements the state negotiated with two employee unions could spark another lawsuit challenging the validity of a controversial gubernatorial directive that extended collective bargaining rights to many government workers.

At issue is the collection of so-called "fair share" fees from non-union members for the cost of representation. Unions are obligated to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, even those who decline to join.

Gov. Bob Holden's June 2001 executive order on collective bargaining authorized such fees.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, joined by business groups and others, sued the governor, claiming the order was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power and that the mandatory fees violated state law.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Thomas J. Brown III dismissed the case in December 2001. Brown determined Holden acted within his authority in issuing the order. As to the fair share fees, the state hadn't at that time attempted to collect them, so Brown ruled the issue wasn't ripe for judicial review. A year later, the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District in Kansas City agreed, and the case came to an end.

But the fee controversy is on the verge of maturing to the point where a court challenge could proceed.

"We have a legal issue ripening to where the fruit can be picked off the low-hanging branches," said Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau.

The separate but identical labor agreements cover health-care workers with the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Corrections and the Missouri Veterans Commission. Those employees are represented by either the Service Employees International Union or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers.

The contracts took effect July 10 and run through June 30, 2006.

Under the deals, employees hired after Sept. 1 will have three choices:

Join the union and pay full dues.

Don't join but agree to the deduction of fair share fees.

Don't take the job.

Current non-union workers will not be required to pay the fees.

State law mandates that employees must give written consent for union dues to be taken from their paychecks.

'Doesn't run afoul' of law

Paul Buckley, the acting chief labor negotiator for the state Office of Administration, said he believes requiring consent as a condition of employment for new hires passes legal muster.

"I think there is definitely a question about that but, of course, our position is it doesn't run afoul of the law," Buckley said.

AFSCME spokesman Kevin Heyen the fee issue is simply about ensuring that non-union workers pay for what the union provides.

"People benefit from what the union has negotiated, and it is just a matter of making that fair," Heyen said.

AFSCME hasn't yet set the dues or fees for the workers it represents under the agreement, Heyen said, but he noted than the fees will be less than full dues. An SEIU spokesman told The Associated Press last week that its dues are a maximum of $35 a month with fees as high as $28.

Some Republicans deride the mandatory fees as a "union lug" and are preparing steps to challenge them.

"We are just stunned by this action and reviewing all options to combat it legally and legislatively," Kinder said.

By an 84-68 vote earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a bill that would have specified that the state may not require its employees to pay such fees. The full Senate took no action on the measure.

House Majority Floor Leader Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, on Thursday asked the state agencies involved to provide him the estimated costs to both taxpayers and employees for collecting the fees.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608