National Education System

This article provides information about the National Education System, the largest labor union and professional interest group in the United States. It discusses the structure of the union, its membership, and its role in enhancing the quality of education. The article also highlights three legal disputes involving the National Education System: Abood v Detroit Board of Education, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association, and Davenport v Washington Education Association.

Running head: NEA
National Education System

NEA 2
National Education Association
In the country of United States the National Education System is the largest labor union
and the professional interest group. The Union is represented by the teachers of public school
and other support personnel, staff and faculties of colleges and universities, retired educators and
the students of college that are preparing to become teachers. There are 3 million people
membership in the National Education system. The NEA structure in few states had been
incorporated as professional Association and in some states as Trade Union. The congressional
charter had been hold by union under Title 36 of the United States Code. The union is the part of
the Education International but it is not the member of the AFL-CIO. National Education
System works for the schools children’s, teachers as to enhance the quality of students and
teachers in the school and to support the schools to make succeed the students and can improve
the quality of students. National Education System was founded in Philadelphia in the year 1857
and as the National Teachers Association (NTA). The first president of the union was Zalmon
Richards and he has been elected in the first annual meeting of the union in 1858 (Ling, 2016).
The legal Disputes in which the National Education System was involved
Abood v Detroit Board of Education
Parties
In the case Abood v Detroit Board of Education 431 US 209 (1977) the parties are Abood
who is the plaintiff and Detroit Board of Education that is the defendant in the case. The facts of
the case that Michigan Law had authorized ageny shop agreements had authorized between the
public agencies and unions represented by government workers. The Detroit Federation of
Teachers has been certified as the exclusive union for Detroit schoolteachers in the year 1867. .
Nature of Dispute
The nature of the dispute is regarding the Union shop which is existed in the public workplace.
The teachers of Detroit had sought for overturning the requirement that the fees which is
equivalent to union dues on the grounds that it opposed the collective bargaining and has the
objections to the ideological activities of Union. The court that has given the confirmation that
the Union is legal in private sector than it is also legal in the public sector.
Adverse Actions
D. Louis Abood is the teacher of a school which has been objected to union membership and to
union’s endorsements for the political candidates which is sued in Michigan state Court in the
year 1969
Dispute Resolved
The dispute was resolved through litigation

NEA 3
Final Outcome
The court upheld the collective bargaining fees on the basis of cases like Railway Employees
Dept v Hanson (1956) and International association Machinists v street (1966). The restriction
had been made on the Union use of funds which are for the non collective bargaining purpose
that has been based on the First Amendment protection in regard to freedom of association and
speech (Antonucci, 2016).
Friedrichs V California Teachers Association 578 U.S. (2016)
Parties
There are ten teachers who are the plaintiff in the case and the main plaintiff is orange
Country that is the elementary teacher of Friedrichs. The defendant is the California Teachers
Association that has been affiliated by the National Education Association.
Nature of Dispute
The nature of dispute was that the dispute in the case of Abood v Detroit Board of Education
should been overruled. The facts that were mentioned in the case of Abood v Detroit Board of
Education that has been defined in the previous case. The case was mainly had the concern with
collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association which is affiliated by the National
education association. The case when initially argued just after that Justice Antonin Scalia was
died that was the turning point in the case as it left only eight members for deciding the case.
Adverse Action
Centre for Individual rights has submitted the rehearing petition but was denied
Dispute Resolved
The dispute was resolved through the litigation. The supreme Court had decided the case
Final Outcome
The decision came on 29th March 2016, Supreme Court had issued a per curiam a one line
opinion that has been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The decision has been made by eight
members that was equally divided Court. The case cannot been considered as the legal precedent
case (Antonucci, 2016).
Davenport v. Washington Education Association 551 U.S. 177 (2007)
Parties
The parties involved in the case were davenport who was the plaintiff in the case and the
Washington Education association which is affiliated by the National Education System is the
defendant in the case.

NEA 4
Nature of Dispute
National Labor Relations Act in which amendment was made that the National unions or the
public sector union will have to take permissions from the member employees of the nonunion
before making any expenditure of the fees on the political expenses that includes elections and
campaigns which is not been considered as the violation of the Unions First Amendment Rights.
Sedction 760 of the State campaign Practices act has been passed in the year 1962 in which the
labor organization cannot use the fees that has been paid by the non union members. Therefore in
the year 2001 Davenport filed a case against the Washington Education System and claimed that
the WEA had failed to obtain the affirmative authorization which was required under section
760.
Adverse Action
The Washington Education Association had made the claim that section 760 is unconstitutional
as per the ruling of the Supreme Court that has been made in relation to campaign finance.
Dispute Resolved
The dispute was resolved through the process of Litigation
Final Outcome
The court held that there were no violation had been made in relation to free speech. The court
held that voters do not have distorted the marketplace of ideas that they have placed a sensible
viewpoint neutral limitation on the Unions. In Accordance with the court section 760 had been
made for the protection of the integrity of the process of elections. Therefore the Court had
overruled the decision of the lower Court (Zeigler, 2015).

NEA 5
References
Abood v Detroit Board of Education 431 US 209 (1977)
Antonucci, M. (2016). Teachers unions at risk of losing" agency fees": Friedrichs v. California
Teachers Association could fundamentally alter the education labor landscape. Education
Next, 16(1), 22-30.
Davenport v. Washington Education Association 551 U.S. 177 (2007)
Friedrichs V California Teachers Association 578 U.S. (2016)
International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961)
Ling, J. E. (2016). Transgressions of a Timid Judiciary: Our Highest Court's Refusal to Overturn
Abood v. Board of Education-Harris v. Quinn. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 42, 1237.
Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)
Zeigler, S. (2015). Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). The Encyclopedia of Civil
Liberties in America, 2.