Conroy v. Rosenblum
358 Or. 807
| Or. | 2016Background
- Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 62 (IP 62), challenging whether it complies with ORS 250.035. The court reviews for substantial compliance.
- IP 62 would amend PECBA by limiting the dues unions may "require" members to pay to amounts necessary and reasonable to defray costs of bargaining on "employment relations," and permitting itemized voluntary payments for other activities.
- Under current law, unions set membership terms and dues; PECBA allows exclusive representation and permits payment-in-lieu-of-dues (fair-share) from nonmembers for representation costs, subject to First Amendment limits on political/ideological expenditures.
- Petitioners raised four challenges: (1) the caption/result statements fail to describe changes to union membership/dues structure; (2) the title fails to disclose a potential "free-rider" effect; (3) the phrase "limited representation/bargaining activities" is unclear and misleading; (4) the summary incorrectly states that employees "may" be represented rather than must be represented under exclusive representation.
- The Attorney General defended the certified title wording, arguing it reasonably described limitations on dues and that free-rider effects were speculative or avoidable by existing fair-share/payment-in-lieu mechanisms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption fails to identify change to union membership/dues terms | Vaandering et al.: IP 62 alters unions' internal authority to set membership terms and limits dues members may be required to pay; caption must say so | AG: Phrase "may require dues/fees only for limited representation/bargaining activities" sufficiently captures change | Court: Caption/result statements must be modified — they fail to inform voters IP 62 limits unions' authority to set membership dues and terms |
| Failure to disclose "free-rider" effect | Vaandering et al./Conroy: By limiting recoverable dues to mandatory "employment relations," many bargaining benefits (permissive subjects) could be obtained by employees without paying costs; must be disclosed | AG: Free-rider effect uncertain; unions may not be required to bargain permissive subjects and fair-share/payment-in-lieu may still compensate unions | Court: Must disclose potential free-rider effect; ballot title/summaries do not adequately inform voters and must be modified |
| Phrase "limited representation/bargaining activities" is unclear | Neel & Forest: Phrase is not a common legal term and will confuse voters | AG: Word limits constrain phrasing; summary clarifies the phrase sufficiently and the phrase is not misleading | Court: Phrase not so unclear or misleading to violate ORS 250.035; allowed to remain |
| Summary misstates exclusive representation | Neel & Forest: First sentence saying employees "may" be represented is incorrect because certified/recognized union must represent all employees | AG: (implicit) wording acceptable | Court: Agreed with petitioners — summary must be corrected to reflect mandatory exclusive representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Towers v. Rosenblum, 354 Or. 125, 310 P.3d 1136 (caption must reasonably identify subject matter)
- Kain/Waller v. Myers, 337 Or. 36, 93 P.3d 62 (determine subject matter by comparing measure to existing law)
- Whitsett v. Kroger, 348 Or. 243, 230 P.3d 545 (subject matter is actual major effect(s) of measure)
- Greene v. Kulongoski, 322 Or. 169, 903 P.2d 366 (caption provides context and must be accurate)
- Sizemore/Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or. 578, 157 P.3d 188 (discusses fair-share/payment-in-lieu and disclosure of effects)
- Novick/Bosak v. Myers, 333 Or. 18, 36 P.3d 464 (definition and scope of payment-in-lieu-of-dues)
- Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (First Amendment limits on compelled payments for non-germane union activities)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (limits on using compelled payments for political/ideological activities)
- Pelikan/Tauman v. Myers, 342 Or. 383, 153 P.3d 117 (court will not speculate about unclear legal effects when reviewing ballot titles)
- Wolf v. Myers, 343 Or. 494, 173 P.3d 812 (same principle regarding uncertainty of legal effects)