Case Citation
Legal Case Name

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS v. BECK Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1988
487 U.S. 735 108 S.Ct. 2641 101 L.Ed.2d 634 Labor Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: Non-union employees covered by a union-security agreement cannot be forced to pay agency fees for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, such as political lobbying. Their required contribution is limited to the costs of representation.

Legal Significance: This case established that under the National Labor Relations Act, a union’s authority to collect agency fees from non-members is limited to funds used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, creating what are known as “Beck rights.”

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS v. BECK Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) was the exclusive bargaining representative for employees of AT&T. The collective bargaining agreement included a union-security clause requiring all employees in the bargaining unit, including those who were not union members, to pay agency fees in amounts equal to the periodic dues paid by union members. A group of twenty non-member employees (respondents) filed suit, alleging that the CWA used a portion of their agency fees for purposes unrelated to its duties as their representative. These non-representational activities included organizing employees of other employers, lobbying for labor legislation, and participating in social, charitable, and political events. The employees argued that this use of their fees violated the union’s duty of fair representation and § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The lower courts found in favor of the employees, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act permit a union, over the objections of non-member employees, to expend agency fees collected from them on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment?

No. Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA does not authorize a union to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act permit a union, over the objections of non-member employees, to expend agency fees collected from them on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment?

Conclusion

This landmark decision significantly curtailed the use of agency fees in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven

Legal Rule

Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes the exaction of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis centered on the statutory interpretation of § 8(a)(3) of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Holding: Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA does not permit a union
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non p

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Justice is truth in action.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+