Burning QuestionDisciplinary ActionLabor LawPolitics

Right to Work and Duty to Represent

Today’s burning question: Are unions required to represent non-dues paying members, even in a right to work state?

Answer: The answer does not depend on whether the state is a right to work state. It depends on whether a union has lawfully been designated as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the employees.

Throughout the private sector and in jurisdictions where public employees are permitted to bargain collectively, the exclusive bargaining representative (the union) has a duty to represent all members of the bargaining unit whether they are members or not. The only exception are states such as Florida who have specific statutes that relieve public sector unions of the obligation to process grievences of non-members..

Let’s define “right to work states” so we are clear about what that term means.

Right-to-work states have statutes that expressly prohibit union security agreements, as well as any agreement or requirement that an employee join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, whether in the public or private sector. Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, 3rd. Ed.

The term right to work state is often mistakenly used to refer to states where public employee collective bargaining is prohibited. While such states may be right to work states, they are actually more than that because they have other laws that make collective bargaining with public employees illegal. Right to work laws per se do not prohibit collective bargaining by public employees.

In states where collective bargaining for public employees is prohibited, unions are relegated to being fraternal associations and cannot represent employees. In such states unions have no duty to represent members or non-members. It is not because they are right to work states, it is because public sector collective bargaining is illegal!!!

So to slowly but surely close in on the answer to your question, there are right to work states where unions are allowed to represent public employees. In those states a union who is the duly appointed exclusive bargaining representative for the employees has a duty to represent members and non-members alike.

Whenever a union has been designated as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees – the union has to represent all employees including non-members. If a union has not been designated as the exclusive bargaining representative – the union has no right nor duty to bargain on behalf of members or non-members.

Here is a copy of a Florida statute that relieves the union of any obligation to represent non-members:

447.401 Grievance procedures.—Each public employer and bargaining agent shall negotiate a grievance procedure to be used for the settlement of disputes between employer and employee, or group of employees, involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement. Such grievance procedure shall have as its terminal step a final and binding disposition by an impartial neutral, mutually selected by the parties; however, when the issue under appeal is an allegation of abuse, abandonment, or neglect by an employee under s. 39.201 or s. 415.1034, the grievance may not be decided until the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of a child has been judicially determined. However, an arbiter or other neutral shall not have the power to add to, subtract from, modify, or alter the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee organization is certified as the bargaining agent of a unit, the grievance procedure then in existence may be the subject of collective bargaining, and any agreement which is reached shall supersede the previously existing procedure. All public employees shall have the right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure administered without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization, except that certified employee organizations shall not be required to process grievances for employees who are not members of the organization. A career service employee shall have the option of utilizing the civil service appeal procedure, an unfair labor practice procedure, or a grievance procedure established under this section, but such employee is precluded from availing himself or herself to more than one of these procedures.

Note: This post was updated to include additional information.

Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 50 years of fire service experience and 40 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. Besides his law degree, he has a MS in Forensic Psychology. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.

Related Articles

7 Comments

  1. When you say they must represent non-members, (due to being designated as the exclusive bargaining representative) is this only for wage related disputes or in all actions with management, i.e. disciplinary?

  2. It is for collective bargaining and “mutual aid or protection” – which includes wage disputes, breaches of the collective bargaining agreement (grievances) and workplace discipline. It would not include matters beyond the workplace such as criminal charges arising from work, or even licensing issues (EMS) that impact one’s job – although some unions will go that far.

  3. In Florida public unions are not required to process grievances for non-members. is this common in other right-to-work states?

  4. Jon – you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of that law would you? Or at least be able to point us to it? It goes against a pretty fundamental principle in labor law. It would also threaten to wreak havoc among the rank and file… think about it. 500 guys like something being done in a certain way… and a non-union member is free to grieve something on his own without the union??? – and if he wins the grievance everyone has to live with a new way of doing things… ??? whether picking vacations… overtime… promotions???? etc.

  5. Sorry, it took me a little while to find it.
    FL State Statutes 447.401
    “All public employees shall have the right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure administered without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization, except that certified employee organizations shall not be required to process grievances for employees who are not members of the organization.”

    I liked the idea since we don’t have to represent non-dues paying members. Though you are right about someone changing it for everyone. Our contract says this (IAFF L4867) about the matter:

    “In accordance with Florida Law, the Union will not be required to process any non-Union member’s grievances but must be invited to any meeting where the resolution of the grievance may occur. If the Union refuses to process a non-Union member’s grievance solely because of non-membership in the Union, the employee shall have the right to participate in the grievance and arbitration procedure to the same extent as the Union and shall have the same rights and obligations as the Union.”

  6. Thanks Jon

    That is terrible law. Absolutely terrible. Think about it. The collective bargaining agreement says vacations shall be selected by seniority. For years the parties have interpreted that to mean the senior member picks one vacation, then the next senior member picks one, then the next until everyone has picked one and then the senior member picks his second vacation, etc… 500 union members agree to that. One non-union member decides he wants the senior member to pick ALL OF HIS VACATIONS before the next senior member picks any of his vacations. He files a grievance. You are telling me the city can grant the grievance and change the way vacations are done for 500 members??? SERIOUSLY???

    And that is just vacations… think about the implications for promotions??? Transfers??? And think about the possibility of collusion between one member and management to change the way things are done??? At a minimum there should be some limitation on grievances that ONLY IMPACT THAT MEMBER… wow…

Back to top button