§

AT&T Midwest and The Ohio Bell Telephone

08-CB-010487 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 9, 2009)
AT&T Midwest and The Ohio Bell Telephone

8 Cited authorities

  1. Teachers v. Hudson

    475 U.S. 292 (1986)   Cited 408 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First Amendment restrains government-compelled exactions of money

  2. Communications Workers of America v. Beck

    487 U.S. 735 (1988)   Cited 278 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-members could not be charged "to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment"

  3. Machinists v. Street

    367 U.S. 740 (1961)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the individual Street plaintiffs "have in the course of [this action] made known to their respective unions their objection to the use of their money for the support of political causes . . . the respective unions were without power to use payments thereafter tendered by them for such political causes"

  4. Labor Board v. General Motors

    373 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 191 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause

  5. Tierney v. City of Toledo

    824 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 78 times
    In Tierney v. City of Toledo, 824 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir. 1987), the court noted that "[procedures... must afford dissenting non-members a reasonable time to voice their objections and must not be framed so as to discourage the exercise of their First Amendment rights by intimidation or the imposition of unrealistic and excessively complex procedural requirements."

  6. Seidemann v. Bowen

    499 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that procedures for dealing with nonmember objections failed to minimize the risk that their First Amendment rights would be burdened because they were not narrowly drawn

  7. Abrams v. Communications Workers of America

    59 F.3d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that thirty-day window period for objecting to fees was not unduly burdensome

  8. Lutz v. Intern. Ass'n of Machinists, Aerospace

    121 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D. Va. 2000)   Cited 4 times
    Acknowledging that "scrutiny under the First Amendment is significantly more rigorous and less deferential than [duty of fair representation] review"