This case pertains to the usage and collection of union dues in the form of "service fees" from dissenting nonmember employees.

In a majority opinion by Justice Blackmun, the Court found that unions may compel contributions from nonmembers only for the costs of performing its duties as exclusive bargaining agent.

Also, the court now requires unions to provide an audited accounting report of their "service fee" spending to fee-paying nonmembers.

This case provides broad clarification on the subject of required union fees in the public sector.

These costs include: The court also found that "certain other of the union activities at issue may not constitutionally be supported through objecting employees' funds."