For Immediate Release
Friday, September 22, 2006
Ninth Circuit Ruling Upholds Law Preventing Employers From Spending Taxpayer Dollars to Fight Unionization
McEntee: "Union-busting Is Not a Legitimate Use of Taxpayer Dollars"
SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday upheld a California law barring employers that receive state funds from spending those funds to deter union organizing.
In 12-3 vote in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, the federal appellate court upheld the legality and constitutionality of the "Cedillo law"--named after its chief sponsor in the California legislature--and rejected arguments that it conflicts with federal law or the state constitution.
"Intimidating and harassing workers who want to unionize is a moral outrage, and taxpayer dollars should not be used to support such activities," said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO. "The Ninth Circuit upheld an important law preventing California companies that do business with the state from spending public funds on activities that infringe on the basic right of workers to join a union. Union-busting is not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars."
The state law took effect January 1, 2001. The Chamber of Commerce, along with various employers, originally challenged the statute in federal district court, alleging that certain provisions in the law were pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board on June 4, 2003, filed an amicus brief supporting the Chamber's position. The California State AFL-CIO, on behalf of several labor organizations, including AFSCME, intervened to defend the law. The law was struck down by the district court but appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Chamber of Commerce argued that the statute compelled employers to take a position of neutrality with respect to labor relations. In rejecting their arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the law did not infringe on employers' rights because they remain free to use their own private funds to advocate for or against unionization. The court also held that the law is consistent with employers' First Amendment rights because they are not required to remain neutral on unionization as a condition of receiving state funds--but are prohibited from using those funds to influence organizing campaigns.
"This ruling is a victory for every Californian who believes in workplace rights, and for the millions of taxpayers who resent the idea of their hard-earned tax dollars being spent on unconscionable union-busting," McEntee said.
# # #
AFSCME is the largest union for workers in the public service with 1.4 million members nationwide and more than 77,000 in California. AFSCME represents a diverse group of service and health care workers in the public and private sectors, including nurses, corrections officers, EMTs and child care providers.
