The Washington Post

Supreme Court drops case on employer-union ‘neutrality agreements’


An area is cleared of snow in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday. (Susan Walsh/AP)

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will not decide whether a type of agreement between employers and unions that has become increasingly important to the labor movement violates the law.

The court dismissed as “improvidently granted” a case it heard last month that both unions and right-to-work groups had called one of the major labor issues of the term. The terminology means that justices found a procedural flaw in the case that kept them from deciding it.

The case was about “neutrality agreements.” In such accommodations, an employer might remain neutral during a union organizing campaign and even grant access to company grounds or lists of employees. In return, the union might agree to give up the right to strike or throw its support behind a matter important to the company.

The agreements have long been used and have been found lawful by several federal appeals courts.

But in the case of a union seeking to organize workers at a Florida greyhound track and casino, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that the agreement violated a section of the Labor Management Relations Act. The law forbids an employer to “pay, lend, or deliver . . . any money or other thing of value” to a labor union seeking to organize the company’s workers.

Mardi Gras Gaming allowed the union, Unite Here, access to its employees and agreed to election rules allowing employees to vote by checking a card in front of others rather than by secret ballot.

The union made concessions as well and agreed to spend $100,000 to support a 2006 referendum to allow slot machines at the casino.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the court’s action, saying it should not have dismissed the case without further action.

He acknowledged that it was possible the Florida case is moot because the contract between Mardi Gras Gaming and Unite Here expired at the end of 2011, before the 11th Circuit rendered its decision. But Breyer said he would call for more briefing on that issue.

If the case is moot, he said, the court should likely vacate the 11th Circuit’s decision.

“Unless resolved, the differences among the courts of appeals could negatively affect the collective-bargaining process,” Breyer wrote.

“This is because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision raises the specter that an employer or union official could be found guilty of a crime that carries a 5-year maximum sentence . . . if the employer or union official is found to have made certain commonplace organizing assistance agreements with the intent to ‘corrupt’ or ‘extort.’ ”

He was joined in the dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The case is Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
Quoted
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.