NLRB Permits Unions to Charge dues Objectors for Lobbying Expenses, and Seeks Further Briefing on “Germaneness” Standard
1 min read
Jan 10, 2013
A former Union member filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Union, which represents hospital employees, violated the National Labor Relations Act by its treatment of the former Union member and other employees who resigned their Union memberships and objected to paying dues that were unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the Union, and an Administrative Law Judge sustained some allegations against the Union. However, all of the parties filed exceptions to portions of the Judge's decision, so the NLRB took up the case.
The NLRB ruled that a union with a collective bargaining agreement that includes a union-security clause may charge nonmember dues objectors for union lobbying expenses that are "germane to collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment." The NLRB found, for example, that lobbying expenses associated with minimum wage legislation, professional licensing, and state supplements to the WARN Act are chargeable to objectors, while those related to general economic stimulus or "broad social or environmental policies" are not chargeable. Although the NLRB provided such examples, it left unanswered precisely what lobbying expenses may be chargeable. The NLRB did, however, invite briefing on how it should apply its new standard going forward. The deadline to file amicus briefs addressing how the NLRB should define and apply a "germaneness standard" is February 19, 2013.
It is anticipated that the NLRB will accept the Union's arguments that every lobbying function is meant to improve the lives of its members and is related to collective bargaining, thereby allowing for the vast majority of lobbying expenses to be charged to objectors, and creating a broad exception to the holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that those who object to paying the required dues may only be charged for the percentage of dues used for purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.
For more information read United Nurses & Allied Prof'ls (Kent Hosp.), 359 N.L.R.B. No. 42, December 14, 2012.
Featured Insights

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
May 21, 2026
Deploying AI Companions in Elder Care: A Privacy Compliance Playbook

Press Release
May 20, 2026
Hinshaw Releases America 250 Book Exploring Insurance's Role in Building the United States

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 19, 2026
OCC's Final Escrow-Interest Preemption Rules Bolster the Second Circuit’s Cantero Decision

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

