Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 21

16  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

members,  see  Steele  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  Co.,  323 
U. S.  192,  202–203  (1944),  but  the  union’s  bargaining 
latitude would be little different if state law simply prohib­
ited  public  employers  from  entering  into  agreements  that
discriminate in that way.  And for that matter, it is ques­
tionable  whether  the  Constitution  would  permit  a  public-
sector  employer  to  adopt  a  collective-bargaining  agree­
ment that discriminates against nonmembers.  See id., at 
198–199,  202  (analogizing  a  private-sector  union’s  fair-
representation duty to the duty “the Constitution imposes
upon a legislature to give equal protection to the interests
of those for whom it legislates”); cf. Rumsfeld v. Forum for 
Academic  and  Institutional  Rights,  Inc.,  547  U. S.  47,  69 
(2006)  (recognizing  that  government  may  not  “impose 
penalties  or  withhold  benefits  based  on  membership  in  a
disfavored group” where doing so “ma[kes] group member­
ship  less  attractive”).    To  the  extent  that  an  employer 
would  be  barred  from  acceding  to  a  discriminatory  agree­
ment anyway, the union’s duty not to ask for one is super­
fluous.  It is noteworthy that neither respondents nor any 
of  the  39  amicus  briefs  supporting  them—nor  the  dis­
sent—has  explained  why  the  duty  of  fair  representation 
causes  public-sector  unions  to  incur  significantly  greater 
expenses  than  they  would  otherwise  bear  in  negotiating
collective-bargaining agreements. 

What about the representation of nonmembers in griev­
ance  proceedings?  Unions  do  not  undertake  this  activity 
solely  for  the  benefit  of  nonmembers—which  is  why  Illi­
nois  law  gives  a  public-sector  union  the  right  to  send  a
representative  to  such  proceedings  even  if  the  employee
declines union representation.  §315/6(b).  Representation 
of  nonmembers  furthers  the  union’s  interest  in  keeping
control  of  the  administration  of  the  collective-bargaining
agreement,  since  the  resolution  of  one  employee’s  griev­
ance  can  affect  others.    And  when  a  union  controls  the 
grievance process, it may, as a practical matter, effectively