Harris v. Quinn
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Harris_v._Quinn an entity of type: Thing
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided in 2018 called Janus v AFSCME.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Harris v. Quinn
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Pamela Harris, et al., Petitioners v.Pat Quinn,Governor of Illinois, et al.
xsd:integer
43181813
xsd:integer
1100035844
rdf:langString
Kagan
xsd:integer
11
rdf:langString
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
rdf:langString
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
616
xsd:integer
573
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-21
xsd:integer
2014
rdf:langString
Harris v. Quinn,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-30
xsd:integer
2014
rdf:langString
Pamela Harris, et al., Petitioners v. Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al.
rdf:langString
The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from Rehabilitation Program PAs who do not want to join or support the union
rdf:langString
Harris v. Quinn
rdf:langString
Alito
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided in 2018 called Janus v AFSCME.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
7154