In March 2015, three Illinois government employees, represented by lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois and the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a lawsuit to intervene. [20] [21] [22] In May 2015, Rauner was excluded from the proceedings after a federal judge ruled that the governor was not entitled to bring such an action, but the case was prosecuted under a new name, Janus v. AFSCME. [23] The case is named after Mark Janus, a child care specialist in Illinois, who is the subject of a collective agreement. As a general rule, it provides that all workers become and must remain union members with a good reputation for the duration of the contract. A good position is generally defined as the payment of periodic dues and introductory fees. The provision also provides that a worker who does not pay union dues or initiation fees must be discharged by the employer at the union`s request. The problem of parasitism is often used to justify union safety agreements. A classic study on the problem of parasitism is presented in Mancur Olson`s 1965 work, The Logic of Collective Action. [2] In labour relations, there is the problem of parasites, because the cost of organizing a union and negotiating a contract with the employer can be very high, and because employers will find it too expensive to take on multiple pay and benefit scales. , some or all non-union members may find that the contract is also favourable to them.
[3] There are different types of union security agreements. Among the most frequent, typical union security clauses that may mislead workers into believing that they actually become members and must pay full membership dues, the Supreme Court ruled in 1988, in its pioneering Beck case, that a union must inform workers that they have the right to refuse union membership and to pay only essential financial contributions. If the union does not give the required notification, the union has violated the National Labor Relations Act and a worker is entitled, at his request, to the reimbursement of taxes and expenses that the worker pays to the union in addition to the basic financial contributions. The International Labour Organization`s right to collective organization and bargaining “cannot under any circumstances be construed as an authorization or prohibition of trade union security agreements, since these issues can be resolved in accordance with national practice.” [9] However, in its recent Marquez decision, the Supreme Court appears to have overturned the decisions of the sixth and eighth arrondissements in favour of the NLRB analysis. In Marquez, the Court considered whether the negotiation of a union through a union security clause that does not contain a language informing workers of their right to refuse union membership and to replace with that membership the payment of essential financial contributions was contrary to the union`s obligation to provide fair representation to the workers it represents. The union security clause at issue followed only the legal language of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows union security clauses to be applied by finding, without approximation, that a collective agreement may require “membership” in a union. On November 3, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a union did not violate its duty of fair representation by negotiating a union safety clause requiring any insured worker to be a “reputable member” of the union. Mark v.