Abood v. Detroit Board of Education | |
---|---|
Argued November 9, 1976 Decided May 23, 1977 | |
Full case name | D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education |
Docket no. | 75-1153 |
Citations | 431 U.S. 209 (more) 97 S. Ct. 1782; 52 L. Ed. 2d 261; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 91 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | 60 Mich. App. 92, 230 N.W.2d 322 (1975); probable jurisdiction noted, 425 U.S. 949 (1976). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 433 U.S. 915 (1977). |
Holding | |
"Agency shop" clause whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues, was valid insofar as the service charges are used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stewart, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Concurrence | Rehnquist |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Concurrence | Powell (in judgment), joined by Burger, Blackmun |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Overruled by | |
Janus v. AFSCME (2018) |
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.[1]
Abood was overturned in the 2018 case Janus v. AFSCME, which found that Abood had failed to properly assess the First Amendment principles in its decision.