Union fight reaches high court

OLYMPIA — In an appeal of a Washington state case, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether labor unions must get permission before spending nonmembers' fees on political activities.

The case, which is scheduled for oral arguments in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, is the latest clash in a nationwide war between labor unions and anti-union forces.

Union leaders say they are fighting to preserve their rights to political free speech.

But their opponents in the case, including the federal government and several states, say what's at stake is the government's ability to regulate union-worker relations. They contend it could even jeopardize so-called "right to work" laws in about two dozen states that bar compulsory union membership.

"It's an important case because it goes to the heart of Washington state's effort to protect nonmembers from being forced to support a union's political activities," said state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will make his first appearance before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case stems from a long-running feud between the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state's main teachers union, and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based conservative think tank.

Acting on a complaint filed more than six years ago by the Freedom Foundation, the state sued the teachers union, accusing it of unlawfully spending some workers' fees on politics.

The WEA is a powerful lobbying force in Olympia and a heavy contributor to political campaigns.

The case was later consolidated with a class-action suit against the union filed by five nonmember teachers. They are being represented by the Virginia-based Right to Work Legal Foundation, which is leading a nationwide push to prohibit collective-bargaining agreements that require workers to join the union.

States have a wide range of rules that govern union-worker relationships.

Like many states, Washington allows collective-bargaining agreements that require workers who choose not to join the union to pay "agency fees" to help cover contract negotiations and other union expenses.

The WEA has 80,000 members statewide and collects agency fees from about 3,500 more teachers who opted out of the union.

Federal courts have ruled that nonmembers who object to having a portion of their agency fees used for political causes can request rebates from the union.

But a Washington state law approved overwhelmingly by voters in 1992 went a step further. Under a provision of Initiative 134, a sweeping campaign-finance measure, unions were barred from spending a nonmember's fees on politics unless that worker gives explicit permission.

In other words, instead of simply allowing nonmembers to opt out, state law in Washington required them to opt in before the union could use their fees for political activities.

That may seem like a subtle distinction. But it is the crux of what lawyers on both sides have painted as a crucial First Amendment dispute.

In 2001, a Thurston County judge sided with the state and the Freedom Foundation by ruling the teachers union had committed multiple violations of that requirement. The union was slapped with nearly $600,000 in fines and legal fees.

But in a 6-3 ruling last year, the state Supreme Court struck down I-134's opt-in provision. The court said requiring the union to get permission from each nonmember posed an unconstitutional burden on the union's free-speech rights.

The court said the union, by sending twice-yearly notices, had given nonmembers a "simple and convenient method of registering dissent."

McKenna appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the union had no First Amendment right to use nonmembers' fees for political purposes.

McKenna said a handful of other states have opt-in requirements similar to Washington's. But he and others say far more is at stake.

A brief filed by six states — Colorado, Alabama, Idaho, Ohio, Utah and Virginia — said Washington's opt-in rule was designed to protect workers' First Amendment rights. If the state court's ruling is upheld, they argued, it would "impose an unchangeable, national rule" and jeopardize right-to-work laws.

WEA President Charles Hasse said those warnings are overblown. He contends that I-134's opt-in requirement was unique to Washington state. He pointed out that most of the nearly dozen briefs seeking to overturn the state court ruling were filed by anti-union organizations.

"It's a good fundraiser for them," Hasse said. "It provides a platform for them to spout a litany of union-bashing slogans."

Ralph Thomas: 360-943-9882 or rthomas@seattletimes.com