Communications Workers of America v. Beck

Communications Workers of America v. Beck
Argued January 11, 1988
Decided June 29, 1988
Full case nameCommunications Workers of America, et al. v. Beck, et al.
Citations487 U.S. 735 (more)
108 S. Ct. 2641; 101 L. Ed. 2d 634; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 3030; 56 U.S.L.W. 4857; 128 L.R.R.M. 2729
Case history
Prior468 F. Supp. 93 (D. Md. 1979); 776 F.2d 1187 (4th Circ. 1985), on rehearing en banc, 800 F.2d 1280 (4th Cir. 1986); cert. granted, 482 U.S. 904 (1987).
Holding
Under a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens; Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia (Parts I and II)
Concur/dissentBlackmun, joined by O'Connor, Scalia
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act §8(a)(3)

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.[1] The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights", and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

  1. ^ Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ Ford, Karen E.; Notestine, Kerry E.; and Hill, Richard N. Fundamentals of Employment Law. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 2000. ISBN 1-57073-806-8
  3. ^ Friesen, Jennifer (1988). "The Costs of Fee Speech--Restrictions on the Use of Union Dues to Fund New Organizing". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 15 (4): 603–648.
  4. ^ Holley, Jennings & Wolters 2008, p. [page needed].
  5. ^ Werntz, Heidi (1993). "Waiver of Beck Rights and Resignation Rights: Infusing the Union-Member Relationship With Individualized Commitment". Catholic University Law Review. 43 (1): 159–226.
  6. ^ Hutchinson, Harry (April 1, 2006). "A Clearing in the Forest: Infusing the Labor Union Dues Dispute With First Amendment Values". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 14 (4): 1309. SSRN 898866.
  7. ^ Hutchison, Harry (June 1, 2000). "Reclaiming the Labor Movement Through Union Dues? A Postmodern Perspective in the Mirror of Public Choice Theory". University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 33 (4): 447–495.
  8. ^ Hartley, Roger (1989). "Constitutional Values and the Adjudication of Taft-Hartley Act Dues Objector Cases". Hastings Law Journal. 41 (1): 1–85.
  9. ^ Hutchison, Harry G. (Fall 2003). "Diversity, Tolerance, and Human Rights: The Future of Labor Unions and the Union Dues Dispute". Wayne Law Review. 49 (3): 705–772.