Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
429 U.S. 167 (1976)
By
         Samantha Gosnell

Facts of the Case
           
In 1977, the Madison Board of Education and the Madison Teachers Inc., a labor union, engaged in a collective bargaining meeting in order to discuss employment issues and to reach an agreement with a written contract. According to Wisconsin law, during a collective bargaining meeting, only representatives of the opposing groups could speak to negotiate the discussed contract. Therefore, only teachers who were a part of the union were permitted to express their views concerning the proposed contract. One of the issues discussed was the fair share clause. Whether teachers were a part of the union or not, the clause required all teachers “to pay union dues to defray the costs of collective bargaining.” The finalized contract did not include anything about the proposed clause. Two nonunion teachers, Holmquist and Reed, were highly opposed to the proposed fair share clause. After conducting a survey of various teachers within the district, the two discovered that many teachers did not even understand the meaning and purpose behind the actual clause. During a public school board meeting, Holmquist openly expressed his opposition regarding the fair share clause. However, believing that this nonunion teacher did not have the right to speak out on matters of the negotiated contract, the union of teachers appealed to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission complaining that this was against the law. 

Court Decision

Siding with the union, the lower courts found the school board guilty of prohibited labor practice. They ruled that Wisconsin law prohibited the nonunion teacher from expressing his views on matters involving the negotiated contract. However, when the case went to the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Holmquist and Reed. Since the nonunion teacher spoke out during a public meeting, the teacher’s right to communicate his views was protected under the First Amendment rights of expression.

Reasons for Decision
           
Since the nonunion teacher was simply utilizing his rights as a citizen, his desire to voice his concerns regarding the fair share clause was protected by his First Amendment rights to expression because he spoke at a school board meeting, which was open to the public. He was not engaging in negotiation with the board.