Skip to main content

National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 16, Afl-Cio

7th CircuitOctober 12, 2005No. 04-2329Cited 15 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Flaum, Easterbrook, Rovner
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement of its order against the Union was granted. The court enforced the Board's finding that the Union violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A) by refusing to refer Darvin Collins for work because he owed back dues, as the controlling Toyota Agreement did not contain a union security clause.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Cannot Refuse Work Referrals Over Unpaid Dues** This case involved a dispute between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and an electrical workers' union. A worker named Darvin Collins owed back dues to his union, and the union refused to refer him for available work because of this debt. The NLRB argued this was illegal retaliation. The court sided with the NLRB and enforced the Board's order against the union. The court found that the union violated federal labor law by refusing to refer Collins for work due to his unpaid dues. The key issue was that the contract governing this work (called the Toyota Agreement) did not contain a "union security clause" – a provision that would have allowed the union to require dues payments as a condition of employment. This ruling matters for workers because it protects their right to work even when they have disputes with their union over dues. Unions cannot use their role in job referrals as leverage to collect debts unless the employment contract specifically allows it. Workers facing similar situations should know that unions must follow proper procedures and cannot arbitrarily deny work opportunities over financial disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.