New Jersey Supreme Court reverses appellate division ruling on union representative salaries 

On Feb. 3, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed a 2019 appellate court ruling that said the Jersey City Board of Education could not pay salaries of union representatives.   

Parties to the suit

The plaintiffs were New Jersey taxpayers Moshe Rozenblit and Won Kyu Rim. The Goldwater Institute, which describes itself as a “free-market public policy research and litigation organization,” represented the plaintiffs. The defendants were the Jersey City Public Schools, the Jersey City Board of Education, and the Jersey City Education Association.

What’s at issue, and how the lower court ruled

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in January 2017 challenging a section of the collective bargaining agreement between the Jersey City Board of Education and the Jersey City Education Association that requires the board to pay the salaries of two teachers working full-time as union representatives. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that this section of the agreement violated Article VIII, Section 3, Paragraph 3 of the state constitution: “No donation of land or appropriation of money shall be made by the State or any county or municipal corporation to or for the use of any society, association, or corporation whatever.” The defendants said the challenged provision was valid under Section 18A:30-7 of the New Jersey Statutes, which permits local boards of education to pay salaries in cases of absence not constituting sick leave. A lower state court upheld this provision of the collective bargaining agreement, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.

On Aug. 21, 2019, a New Jersey appellate court ruled the Jersey City Board of Education could not use public funds to pay the salaries of union representatives.

How did the New Jersey Supreme Court rule? 

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed the appellate court’s decision, reinstating an October 2017 trial court judgment. Writing for the court, Justice Anne Patterson said: 

We do not share the Appellate Division’s view that the Board’s agreement to the disputed provisions exceeded its statutory grant of authority. In the Education Code, the Legislature empowered boards of education to make rules governing the compensation of teachers, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4, and to fix ‘the payment of salary in cases of absence not constituting sick leave,’ N.J.S.A. 18A:30-7. The Legislature thus authorized the Board to grant a paid leave to the releasees to allow them to attend to labor relations work pursuant to the CNA. Moreover, because the releasees’ efforts encourage cooperative labor relations and facilitate the early resolution of employer-employee disputes, the CNA’s release time provisions facilitate the Board’s management of the public schools pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(c). The releasees also further the mediation and resolution of labor disputes in accordance with N.J.S.A. 34:13A-2, a provision of the Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA). We conclude that the Board’s payment of salaries and benefits to the releasees is within its statutory grant of authority.

The case name and number are Rozenblit v. Lyles, 083434.

What are the responses? 

• New Jersey Education Association Communications Director Steve Baker said, “We’re pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the principle of collective bargaining in New Jersey. … New Jersey public employees and employers have had the right to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of employment for 52 years. It’s a longstanding practice, and the Supreme Court’s ruling upheld that and affirmed that that right still exists in New Jersey.” 
• Goldwater Institute Director of National Litigation Jon Riches said, “Public resources should be put to public use, not to advance the private interests of labor organizations. … And we stand ready to work with policymakers in New Jersey and elsewhere to eliminate this taxpayer abuse and require that government employees perform the jobs they were hired to perform, rather than work to advance special interests at taxpayer expense.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics releases annual union membership estimates

On Jan. 22, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its annual estimates of union membership in the United States. The full press release and data set can be found here.

• The BLS estimates that 34.8% of public-sector workers nationwide were union members in 2020, roughly five and a half times the membership rate in the private sector (6.3%). In 2019, public-sector union membership was estimated at 33.6%.
• Local government workers were unionized at an estimated rate of 41.7% in 2020, up from 39.4% in 2019.
• State workers were unionized at a rate of 29.9% in 2020, up from 29.4% in 2019.
• Federal workers were unionized at a rate of 26.0% in 2020, up from 25.6% in 2019.

What we’re reading

• Bloomberg Law, “Biden Cleans House at Labor Impasse Panel After Union Gripes,” Feb. 3, 2021
• San José Spotlight, “Bill to allow legislative staffers to unionize gets support from San Jose lawmakers,” Feb. 1, 2021
• The Center Square, “Sacramento-Yolo employees win ruling in California Labor Board case charging union bosses with illegal surveillance,” Jan. 28, 2021
• Erie News Now, “Erie Water Works Employees Win Lawsuit Against Their Union,” Jan. 28, 2021  

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 55 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue. 

• Kentucky SB142: This bill would require that employees give written consent, revocable at any time, to have union dues withheld from their paychecks. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 2. 
• Maine LD97: This bill would bar public-sector and private-sector employers from requiring employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Labor and Housing Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 17. 
• Maryland HB486: This bill would make revisions to the collective bargaining process for employees of the University System of Maryland.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Appropriations Committee hearing Feb. 3. 
• Maryland HB837: This bill would establish a separate collective bargaining unit for teachers at the Maryland School for the Deaf.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Appropriations Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 10.
• Maryland HB894: This bill would establish collective bargaining rights for certain community college employees.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • House Appropriations Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 10.
• Maryland SB9: This bill would make revisions to the collective bargaining process for employees of the University System of Maryland.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 4. 
• Maryland SB138: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to employees of the Baltimore County Public Library.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 4. 
• Maryland SB521: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, or St. Mary’s College of Maryland. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 18. 
• Maryland SB556: This bill would establish a separate collective bargaining unit for teachers at the Maryland School for the Deaf. 
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 25. 
• Montana HB251: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment. It would also allow employees to revoke payroll deductions for union dues at any time with written notice. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • House Business and Labor Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 11. 
• Nevada SB13: This bill would establish that local governments’ ending fund balances of up to 25 percent would not be subject to negotiation during collective bargaining.
  • Referred to Senate Government Affairs Committee Feb. 1. 
• New Hampshire HB348: This bill would require a public employer to provide notice of a new or amended collective bargaining agreement. 
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 11. 
• New Hampshire SB61: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements that require employees to join a labor union.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Senate Commerce Committee reported favorably Feb. 1. 
• Oklahoma HB1985: This bill would require that school employee unions submit to secret-ballot elections in order to continue on as collective bargaining agents.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 1. Referred to House Common Education Committee Feb. 2. 
• Oklahoma HB2747: This bill would eliminate the Public Employees Relations Board. It would direct municipal public employers to recognize unions as the exclusive bargaining agents for police officers or firefighters upon a majority vote of the members of the bargaining unit.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 1. Referred to House County and Municipal Government Committee Feb. 2. 
• Oklahoma SB634: This bill would require annual authorizations for payroll dues deductions for school employees.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Introduced Feb. 1. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee Feb. 2. 
• Tennessee SJR0002: This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would bar any person, corporation, or governmental entity from denying employment due to an individual’s affiliation status with a union or other employee organization.
  • Republican sponsorship. 
  • Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 9. 
• Washington SB5055: This bill would prohibit law enforcement personnel from entering into collective bargaining agreements that prevent, prohibit, or otherwise alter local government ordinances or charters providing for “civilian review of law enforcement personnel.”
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Labor, Commerce, and Tribal Affairs Committee hearing Feb. 3.
• Washington SB5133: This bill amends the definition of a “confidential employee” for the purposes of collective bargaining.
  • Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Senate Ways and Means Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 11.