Flight attendant takes union fee challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court

Home
»
Stories
»
2025
»
April

GLOBAL INDUSTRY NEWS

Qatar Airways In Talks To Buy 20% Of Virgin Australia - Airline Ratings

Global Industry News

Flight attendant takes union fee challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court

Richard J. Clair | Corporate Counsel and Staff Attorney (1993-Present) | NRTWLD&EF, Inc

By Sky Industry News

Apr 23, 2025

Flight attendant Ali Bahreman has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case challenging a contract that barred him from using his seniority to bid on flight assignments due to his refusal to join the Transportation Workers Union (TWU). Bahreman argues that the union contract with Allegiant Airlines management violates the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by conditioning bidding privileges and job benefits on union fee payments.

The RLA, applicable to rail and air industries, allows union security agreements, requiring workers to pay union fees to maintain employment. Bahreman's petition contends that, despite the RLA granting unions power to require fee payments, it's illegal for unions to discriminate against nonmembers through such contracts. This principle is rooted in the 1944 Steele Supreme Court decision, which established the "Duty of Fair Representation" to prevent discriminatory practices by unions.

Bahreman's petition highlights a conflict with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the TWU's contract enforcement. This ruling, according to the petition, raises constitutional concerns about union-exclusive bargaining powers under both the RLA and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Get the Newsletter

Sign-up to receive weekly round up of news from Sky Industry News

By submitting, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. By providing your phone number you are opting in and consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from our short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

“Having unraveled the DFR, the Ninth Circuit’s decision allows unions to wield congressionally delegated exclusive representation power without the DFR’s limitations. That raises ‘serious constitutional questions’ regarding exclusive representation’s constitutionality," states the petition.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling permitted union-backed contracts that exclude benefits for those not paying union fees, a decision Bahreman argues sanctions discrimination against nonmembers, contradicting federal law's demand for fair representation by union officials. Federal law allows unions monopoly bargaining powers over all workers in a unit, but mandates non-discriminatory practice against those opposing the union.

“Mr. Bahreman’s case shows how deep the rabbit-hole of union boss legal privileges goes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision turns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘duty of fair representation’ on its head, and exposes the underlying constitutional tensions that the Court identified long ago in the 1944 Steele High Court decision."

“Originally created in Steele as a bulwark against union bosses wielding their monopoly representation and forced dues powers to discriminate, the Ninth Circuit’s reinterpretation of the DFR doctrine allows union officials to engage in discrimination to coerce fee payment from union dissidents,” added Mix. “The Supreme Court should take Mr. Bahreman’s case to settle the circuit split and make it clear that Big Labor officials cannot wield their extraordinary government-granted powers to undermine the working conditions of workers who oppose union affiliation.”