## Facts

- Western Airlines and a union entered a union-shop agreement under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) requiring clerical employees to join the union or pay agency fees equal to dues.
- Several employees who paid compelled fees objected to the union’s use of their money for certain activities.
- The union conceded objectors could not be charged for political or ideological spending and used a rebate program that collected full dues first and later refunded the nonchargeable portion.
- The parties disputed the legality of charging objectors for six categories of expenditures: (1) the national convention, (2) litigation not involving contract negotiation or grievance settlement, (3) union publications, (4) social activities, (5) death benefits, and (6) general organizing.
- The district court found the challenged expenses nonchargeable, upheld the rebate program as adequate, and ordered refunds.
- The Ninth Circuit upheld the rebate plan and allowed charging objectors for all six categories because they ultimately benefited collective bargaining.
- The union was later decertified, raising a mootness argument against challenges to the rebate program.

## Issues

1. Whether the employees’ challenge to the rebate program was moot after the union’s decertification.
2. Whether a “pure rebate” system (collect first, refund later) adequately protects objectors’ statutory and First Amendment interests.
3. Which contested expenditures are chargeable to objectors under the RLA as germane to the union’s duties as exclusive bargaining representative.

## Decision

- The Court held the challenge was not moot because a claim for monetary relief (including interest for amounts improperly held) remained live.
- The Court held the union’s pure rebate approach was inadequate because it forces dissenters to finance nonchargeable activity temporarily, functioning as an involuntary loan.
- The Court adopted a germaneness standard for chargeability tied to the union’s representational duties.
- The Court held the RLA did not permit charging objectors for general organizing efforts.
- The Court held the RLA did not permit charging objectors for litigation unrelated to negotiating agreements or settling grievances (absent a showing it was part of the union’s representational functions).
- The Court held the union could charge objectors for the national convention and for certain publication, social, and death-benefit expenses to the extent they were germane to representation.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A case is not moot if a claim for retrospective monetary relief remains, even if prospective injunctive relief appears moot.
- Under the RLA, objecting employees may be compelled to fund only those expenditures “necessarily or reasonably incurred” to perform the union’s duties as exclusive representative in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.
- A pure rebate system is insufficient where it allows the union to use objectors’ funds for nonchargeable purposes even temporarily; feasible alternatives include advance reductions or escrow arrangements.
- Expenditures not sufficiently connected to representational duties—such as general organizing outside the bargaining unit and non-germane litigation—are not chargeable to objectors.
- The governmental interest in labor stability permits compelled financial support for activities germane to collective bargaining, but not for non-germane activities.

## Conclusion

The Court required stronger protections than a refund-after-the-fact approach for employees compelled to pay union fees under the RLA and limited chargeable expenses to those tied to the union’s role as exclusive bargaining representative, permitting some internal union costs (such as conventions and certain publications and benefits) while forbidding charges for general organizing and non-germane litigation.


Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Emps., 466 U.S. 435 (1984)