(June 20, 2008) The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that states may no longer restrict employers’ right to communicate with their employees about unionization.
The case of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Brown challenged the mandates of AB 1899 (Cedillo; D-Los Angeles), signed into law in 2000 by former Governor Gray Davis, that forbid private employers who receive state funds in excess of $10,000 from engaging in any activity or communications to assist, promote or deter union organization, unless the employer could prove that the money used for such an activity did not come from the state.
Read the opinion
The California Chamber of Commerce joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups in urging the U.S. high court to review the case in 2007, arguing that federal law pre-empted AB 1899.
The court recognized that a state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its funds are spent in accordance with the purposes for which they were appropriated.
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, saying, “although a state has a legitimate proprietary interest in ensuring that state funds are spent in accordance with the purposes for which they are appropriated, this is not the object of AB 1899. In contrast to a neutral affirmative requirement that funds be spent solely for the purpose of the relevant grant or program, AB 1899 imposes a targeted negative restriction on employer speech about unionization.”
Justice Stevens wrote that one of the law’s fatal flaws was that that the statute does not apply the constraint uniformly. “Instead of forbidding the use of state funds for all employer advocacy regarding unionization, AB 1899 permits use of state funds for select employer advocacy activities that promote unions,” he wrote.
Prior court action in the challenge to AB 1899’s legality resulted in a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing with the CalChamber position. Subsequently, a review by the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the earlier decision of the three-judge panel and led to the petition for hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Litigation Center, at least 20 states either have similar laws or have proposed to enact laws that also restrict federally protected employer speech about unionization. The Supreme Court’s decision will ripple through the legal system and likely result in the invalidation of similar legislation in other states.
Read the opinion
Staff Contact: Janet Richmond