Serna v. Transport Workers Union of America
Serna v. Transport Workers Union of America
Opinion
We have reviewed the record, read the briefs, and heard arguments from both parties. We- conclude that the two questions presented in this appeal are governed by controlling Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. See Ry. Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 238, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956) (allowing union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act (RLA)); Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 774, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961) (allowing opt-out re *666 quirement under the RLA); Shea v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 154 F.3d 508, 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1998) (allowing opt-out requirement under the RLA). 1 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
. We note that when Serna filed his complaint, the Transport Workers Union of America required dissenting non-members to annually renew their objection in order to avoid paying support to the union’s political activities. We expressly held in Shea—which was decided fifteen years prior to Serna's complaint—that the First Amendment prohibits a union from requiring objectors to annually renew their objections. Because the union no longer requires an annual opt-out, Shea obliges us to uphold the union’s current opt-out policy.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.