工會保障與表意自由――以美國聯邦最高法院相關判決為核心

Union Security v. Freedom of Expression: Focusing on Related U.S. Supreme Court Cases

在今日，將近美國一半的州允許工會及公部門之雇主私下協商所謂 之代理人職場協約，在該等協約下，每個協商單位之勞工雖得以選擇不 加入工會，然被要求必須繳交代理費，以分攤工會作為其集體協商代表 之成本，此即為本文所述相關美國聯邦最高法院判決大致之場景。關於 此爭議之指標性判決 1977 年 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education 案，在 30 幾年後，於 2014 年之 Harris v. Quinn 案遭受到尖銳的批 判，導致紛紛推測 Abood 案將遭推翻，在上開所謂之公平分攤費用爭 議中，若承認不同意見之勞工得以主張美國憲法增修條文第 1 條，現 行工會主導勞工組織之政治影響力將大幅受到減損，無怪乎 2016 年之 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 案被視為最高法院當會期最 重要的判決之一，然在重新定位工會之政治角色時，必須平衡多數與少 數勞工之權利，折衝於表意自由與工會保障之間，該等爭議發展之結果 及處理之經驗，亦值得我國關注及學習。

Today, about half of U.S. states allow unions and public-sector employers to negotiate for agency shop arrangements. Under such arrangements, employees in a privately bargaining unit who choose not to join the union, are required to pay a fee to the union that covers their share of the costs the union bears as their collective bargaining representative. This is the scenario of related U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Leading case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) was subjecting to withering criticism in Harris v. Quinn (2014), many observers speculate that the Supreme Court may now be willing to overrule Abood. Recognizing a First Amendment objection to such compelled support would greatly diminish the political influence of public-sector unions, which currently dominate the ranks of organized labor. For that reason, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016) is one of the most important case to be heard this Term. They must balance the rights of majority and minority employees while redefining the traditional political role of the union, and harmonize the union security and freedom of expression. The experience is also valuable for us to learn.