Court Opinion

ID: 9669009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:36:26.945851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:51.271926
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McCall,
joined by Justice Griffin, dissenting.
I believe that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals *362should be reversed and that of the trial court affirmed, and therefore respectfully dissent.
While this case involves the application of the First Amendment to compulsory membership in modern labor unions, the question presented is as old as American history. The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 and after a continuous struggle beginning in 1607 against compulsory membership in private organizations and compulsory support thereof. “The language of the First Amendment is to be read not as barren words found in a dictionary but as symbols of historic experience illumined by the presuppositions of those who employed them.” Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 523, 71 Sup. Ct. 857, 873, 95 Law Ed. 1137.
It will be recalled that in nine of the original American colonies an “established” church existed and was supported by public funds until the time of the American Revolution. During the first half of the seventeenth century these established churches were the most influential organizations in the lives of the colonists. Three requirements were made by law of all persons, that they (1) attend the official church, (2) pay church taxes to support the official church, and (3) subscribe to the ideology of the official church. Dissenters were persecuted and punished by the colonial governments in a variety of ways. They were fined, deprived of civil rights, imprisoned, whipped, banished, and hanged. However, the unremitting struggle against such compulsion soon compelled the established churches to make compromises such as the New England Half-Way Covenant of 1657, which required only formal membership and financial support but dispensed with the necessity of ideological conformity.
By the time of the Revolution only financial support by way of special taxes was required of those not members of the established organization. The crucial struggle came in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1784 over a bill for a “general assessment” for the maintenance of religion. No less an orator than Patrick Henry urged that since religion promotes happiness and prosperity for all, every citizen should be compelled by law to contribute to the support of the church. Proponents of the bill advanced the original form of the argument against free riders. Since all citizens benefitted from the program of the church, all should help pay therefor. (In the majority opinion and in the Hanson decision Senator Hill is quoted: “ ‘The question in this instance is whether those who enjoy the fruits and the. benefits of the.' unions should make a fair contribution to *363the support of the unions.’ ” If “churches” is substituted for “unions,” it will be seen that the Senator parroted an argument long ago repudiated by Americans).
The opponents of the general assessment bill led by James Madison supported an opposition bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson, entitled Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which declared in its preamble “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” The general assessment bill was defeated and the Statute for Religious Freedom adopted in 1786, and Madison wrote Jefferson: “I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hopes of making laws for the human mind.” (Apparently the gift of prophesy was not among Madison’s endowments).
It was upon this issue of compulsory support of private organization that the dissenters in Virginia in 1788 led by Elder John Leland resisted the movement to adopt the proposed federal constitution until its proponents agreed to a Bill of Rights, including as its first provision of the First Amendment the guarantee that there would be no establishment of religion. It is well to remember that at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment that neither ideological conformity nor even formal Half-Way Covenant membership was any longer being demanded. The chief evil to be forever prohibited was compulsory financial support of a private organization by those who did not subscribe to its program.
Today various forms of the ideology of materialism command the allegiance and support of half the world. This ideology has its own varied organizational forms, one of which is the labor union, that in some instances exercises as great an influence over the lives of its members as did the established churches of Colonial days. By the 1951 amendment to the Railway Labor Act Congress provided for a new type of establishment suitable to the modern ideology. The authority of the federal government is enlisted in support of compulsory membership in private labor organizations and compulsory support thereof. The statute does not require ideological conformity but merely harkens back to the Half-Way Covenant and requires formal membership and financial support of the unions. In Railway Employees’ Department et al v. Hanson et al., the Federal Supreme Court seems to construe the amendment, Section 2 Eleventh of the Act, as requiring not even formal membership but only that non-members pay to the organization such dues, *364fees, and assessments that are reasonably' allocable to the cost of collective bargaining. Thus the new Half-Way Covenant is not upheld but the taxes for the new establishment are declared not violative of the First Amendment.
The question in the present case is whether the contract demanded by the labor unions in their negotiations calls for (1) ideological conformity, (2) formal membership, or (3) financial support. Petitioners argue that the record supports the trial court findings that Respondents, the unions, are demanding •a contract which provides for (1), (2) and (3). Respondents argue that “full membership” with ideological conformity is not being demanded, but only items (2) and (3). They argue that the contract in this case is literally the same as in the Hanson case, which used the words of Section 2 Eleventh of the Rail'way Labor Act that “all employees shall become members of the labor organization.” In my opinion the contracts are not necessarily the same because some of the “labor organizations” are not the same. A contract “to become a member of the political party” will have widely different meanings as it is applied to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Prohibitionist Party, and the Communist Party. Indeed, today such a contract entered into with the representative of the last party above mentioned for even formal membership in the party is so radically different that it often gets the new member into serious trouble, including expulsion from some of the above unions, or in some cases loss of employment.
Almost a score of labor organizations are here involved, varying from boilermakers to bartenders. The requirements of membership as evidenced by their constitutions and by-laws are different. There are as many different contracts here as there are labor organizations. I believe that the evidnce in this case supports the judgment of the trial court that the contracts demanded, when interpreted in the light of the record in this case, call for at least compulsory formal membership. The modern version of the ancient “test oath” set forth in the dissenting opinion of Justice Smith requires a pledge of ideological conformity for even formal membership.
The majority opinion of the Court interprets the Hanson case as sanctioning only compulsory financial support of the new establishment, and that support limited to just the collective bargaining activities of the labor organization. With this interpretation I agree but am of the opinion that the effect of the judgment in this case, in the light of the record herein, is *365an extension of the rule of the Hanson case to cover at least formal membership. Judicial duty compels this Court to follow the Hanson case, but does not require us to make the slightest extension thereof.
I believe that under the Hanson case the only relationship required of the non-member to the union is that of debtor and creditor. It is the same relationship against which Jefferson, Madison and Leland fought * * * that the non-member owed the established organization for his proportionate share of the expense of the program from which he allegedly derived benefit and the state compelled payment of this debt. The unions under the Hanson case are entitled to demand that the railroad, by a check-off system, collect the debt which they claim the nonmembers owe them. Since the unions have demanded much more, they were properly enjoined.
Opinion delivered July 25, 1956.
Rehearing overruled December 5, 1956.