May 18, 2000

Supreme Court Ruling: Good News and Bad News
Paycheck Protection Upheld, But Union Off the Hook

In a complex decision released today, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that school districts must protect employee paychecks from political withholding if the districts have actual notice that wages are being used for political purposes. This decision interprets the law created in 1992 by the passage of Initiative 134 that made mandatory political withholding from paychecks illegal.

Unfortunately, the unions, who assess the dues and get to use millions of teacher dollars for politics, are off the hook. The court ruled that unions are not responsible for the actual disbursement of wages; therefore, are not "employers" and cannot be held liable.

"We are disappointed that the court placed such a heavy burden on school districts and individual teachers, but we hope districts will now move aggressively to protect teachers’ paychecks," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "If not, we will be back in court."

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation and a group of teachers brought a lawsuit against the Washington Education Association charging its officials with violating Washington state’s paycheck protection law.

"Unfortunately, " said Williams, "the court’s ruling forces school districts to depend upon the integrity of a union and its leaders who have already received the largest campaign finance violation fine in state history."

"Of course, union leaders can solve this whole problem if they will agree to use for politics only money given voluntarily by employees.

- - - For the complete ruling, see: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinpage/recent.cfm

FROM THE RULING:

Majority opinion
"When an employer has notice that the funds deducted are for the use of a political committee or candidate, the employer may not then make that deduction without specific annual authorization."

Madsen/Agid opinion
"The majority says that where the employer has notice that the deducted funds are for the use of a political committee or candidate, the employer must have the employee’s written annual consent. Majority at 26-27."

"However, under the majority’s notice rule, if the employer has notice that some of the dues will ultimately be put to these uses, then an annual authorization is required."

"Thus, if an employer school district has some reason to believe that a portion of union dues or other assessments withheld will be used as political contributions, and requires an annual consent form from the employee in an effort to comply with the majority’s notice rule, the employer could well run afoul of RCW 41.59.100 if mistaken."

Alexander opinion
"A more difficult question, though, is presented if a district receives information from one of its employees, who claims he or she is a member of the WEA and privy to the internal workings of the association, that withheld money is bing used for the benefit of political candidates or committees. Under that scenario, a much stronger argument can be mounted that the district has actual notice, or that, at the very least, it must assume a burden to make further inquiries. "

Sanders opinion
"Under the plain language of this statute the buck stops with the employer who must take responsibility for the ultimate misappropriation of any portion of wage deductions contrary to law. Perhaps the employers would be well advised to make some reasonable inquiry, or take some reasonable precautions by contract or other device with its payees; however, that is up to them, not this court."

Questions? Contact: Jami Lund
(360)956-3482 or jlund@effwa.org