• Download Our App!

    Important Links
    Visit ibew.org!
    Visit www.ibewhourpower.com/!
    Visit www.previant.com/!
    Visit www.unionplus.org!
    Visit myvote.wi.gov/en-us/!
    Visit www.ibewmade.com/!
    Visit miaflcio.org/!
    Visit movalleyjatc.org!
    Visit schoolforworkers.uwex.edu/!
    Visit aflcio.org/!
    Visit wisaflcio.org/!
    Visit retiredamericans.org/!
    Visit osha.gov/!
    Visit nsujl.org/!
    Visit www.wrtp.org/!
  • U.S. Court of Appeals Holds that Wisconsin Cannot Regulate Duration of Dues Checkoff Agreements
    Posted On: Sep 17, 2018

    U.S. Court of Appeals Holds that Wisconsin Cannot Regulate Duration of Dues Checkoff Agreements

    On September 13th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decisionprohibiting state regulation of dues checkoff agreements. These agreements provide a mechanism for union members to pay dues through payroll deductions. The agreements are a voluntary administrative tool used by parties to facilitate the payment of dues. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act unions may maintain dues checkoff authorizations, so long as the deductions are not "irrevocable [by the employee] for a period of more than one year."

    In 2015, as part of Wisconsin's so-called "right to work" law, Wisconsin prohibited "dues checkoff authorizations" unless revocable upon 30 days' notice by an employee. Wis. Stat. §111.06(1)(i). District 10 of the International Association of Machinists brought a legal challenge to the Wisconsin law arguing that this regulation was preempted by the one-year provision of federal law. In its 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals agreed. The court found, based on long-standing precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, that "the State's attempt to add additional regulatory requirements for dues-checkoffs, and thus to change the scope of permissible collective bargaining, is preempted." The decision affirms a lower court decision from 2015 which permanently enjoined that provision of the law.

    The case was argued by Attorneys Nathan Eisenberg  and Jill Hartley of The Previant Law Firm. The decision does not impact the other parts of the right-to-work law.

  • IBEW Local 2150

    Copyright © 2019.
    All Rights Reserved.

    Powered By UnionActive

    352857 hits since Aug 10, 2016

  • Top of Page image