Arbitration
Arbitration (also called appeal or objection) is the process provided for by labor contracts, where individual employees can object to the "service" fee and the union will provide an arbitration process to mediate the dispute. The arbitration process is provided for by the US Supreme Court Hudson decision, which requires that union forced dues or payments can not be spent on ideological or political issues which were not "germane" to collective bargaining. Under Hudson, the burden of placing an appeal is put on the employee, from there the burden of proving that expenses are "germane" is on the union. Under arbitration, the objectors and the union present evidence to determine what is proven to be "germane" and what is not. An arbitrator provides the final decision, which is binding.Of course the problem with such a process is its implication that forcing employees to pay union fees is acceptable, and that only certain types of expenses are not.
Nevertheless, several employees filed objections with MSEA saying they believed they were being forced to pay for things not "germane", with the goal being to either reduce or eliminate the "service" fee. Three different hearings were held where it was learned that MSEA does not keep track of expenses in a manner that is sufficient to really determine what is "germane" and what is not. The final outcome of this process is pending, with each side providing its final written arguments, and then the arbitrator will make a decision.
If you have questions about this process, please contact Mark Turek.
Update April 16 2008:
Maine Fee Challengers File 'No Confidence' VoteAfter three (3) long years, a group of current Fee Challengers and other representatives have filed a 'No Confidence Resolve' with the American Arbitration Association's Boston office (AAA). By taking this action, the Fee Challengers involved have expressed No Confidence in the ability and intent of this arbitration process, in the AAA in their role as Arbiter agent for MSEA and in Mr. John Cochran as Arbitrator in this case, to deliver an accurate and impartial determination on the Fee Challengers charge that the MSEA/SEIU Local 1989 has made errors in the validation of expenses billed to chargeable and mixed accounts and in the use of certain expenses and methodology in the calculation of the agency fee charged to non-members in 2007-08.
As written in a report from the Maine Labor Relations Board (dated March 3, 2008), that was submitted to Maines Joint Standing Committee of Labor, the Board concluded that performing agency fee adjudication would have a very significant impact on the operations of the Board, as substantial professional staff time would be consumed by the process. This would affect the Boards ability to achieve its core mission at a time when the Board anticipates a significant increase in workload due to the K-12 reorganization enacted in 2007. Given that agency fee objectors always have the option of pursuing an action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the board concludes that the current system of using an impartial decision maker should remain intact.
Some Fee Challengers are deeply troubled by that statement from the State's Labor Board, as it illustrates they are unable to handle the "substantial professional staff time" required for an important case like this. In addition, "Given that agency fee objectors always have the option of pursuing an action in federal court," this statement seems to imply the Labor Board doesn't need to be concerned this case. Since the Baldacci Administration has played a major role in this case of forced unionism within Maine State Government, some Fee Challengers and other representatives believe it's time for truly fair and impartial review of the so-called "fair share fee" calculation process. As one of the Fee Challenger Representatives summarized, Mark Turek, "I believe this has been a lopsided process in the union's favor since it began three years ago. The accounting and calculation procedures used are anything but fair or accurate, and the arbitration process feels like a kangaroo court and waste of time. The Fee Challengers deserve a fair and impartial review process - it's also the law."