Local Representation
The duty of fair representation after Janus
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court
changed the landscape for public sec-
tor unions across the country. In Janus
v. American Federation of State, Coun-
ty and Municipal Employees, Council
31 et. al, the court overturned 41 years
of legal precedent and found that the
forced payment of agency fees by non-
JAMES
BRIAN J. members to the union is unconstitu-
METS
MANETTA tional. Simultaneously, the court re-
affirmed the requirement that unions
provide fair representation to all members of the bargaining unit,
including those nonmembers who are no longer required to con-
tribute. In light of the Janus decision, it is imperative that Local PBA
officials are cognizant of their duty to provide fair representation to
all members.
The duty of fair representation
The duty to provide fair representation has its roots in both stat-
utory and common law. The New Jersey Employer-Employee Rela-
tions Act prohibits employee organizations, their representatives
and agents from “interfering with, restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by this act.” N.J.S.A.
34:13A-5.4(b)(1)(2018).
In Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court, in
analyzing a similar provision of the National Labor Relations Act,
recognized that the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of
employees (such as all patrol officers) has a statutory duty to fairly
represent all of those employees both at the bargaining table and in
the enforcement of the resulting collective bargaining agreement.
In Vaca, the Supreme Court held that a union’s conduct towards a
member of the bargaining unit must not be arbitrary, discriminato-
ry or in bad faith. Vaca, 386 U.S. at 190.
Since Vaca, federal and sta