The Taft-Hartley Act also prohibits unions from charging excessive initiation fees as a prerequisite for membership, in order to prevent you from using initiatory fees as a means of driving non-unionized employees away from a given sector. In addition, the National Labor Relations Act allows employers to enter into pre-employment agreements in which they agree to source from a group of employees seconded by the union. The NLRA prohibits pre-lease agreements outside the construction industry.  The alliances of the International Labour Organization are not interested in the legality of the closed shop rules, so the question is left to each nation.  The legal status of closed shop agreements varies considerably from country to country, ranging from prohibitions in the agreement to non-mention to comprehensive regulation of the agreement. The Taft-Hartley Act banned the store closed in the United States in 1947. The union shop was declared illegal by the Supreme Court.  States that have right-to-work laws go further by not allowing employers to require workers to pay a form of union dues called agency fees. An employer cannot legally agree with a union to hire only union members, but it can accept that workers join the union or pay it the equivalent of union dues within a specified period of time after the start of employment. Similarly, a union could ask an employer who, prior to 1947, had accepted a closed store contract to dismiss a worker who, for one reason or another, had been excluded from the union, but it could only require an employer to work a worker under a union contract for any reason other than non-payment of dues demanded by all workers: to dismiss.
All forms of closed businesses in the Commonwealth are illegal under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. There was an attempt by the Howard government to change the definition of what constitutes a closed store, in accordance with the Labour Relations Amendment (More Jobs, More Pay) Bill 1999.  However, the bill was later defeated.  Such agreements attract attention for a wide range of reasons and are considered in some quarters to be a violation of the LRA`s freedom of association provisions and Section 18 of the Constitution, which deals with the right to join or leave groups of their own choosing. The European Court of Human Rights held that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided for a “negative right of association or, in other words, a right not to be compelled to join an association”, in Sørensen and Rasmussen against Denmark (2006). Therefore, the closed businesses referred to in Article 11 of the Convention are illegal. Closed shop agreements were not included in the current LRA`s initial draft in the early 1990s. However, they were later met under pressure from trade union organizations, although they were banned in many other Western democracies. The status of closed businesses varies from province to province within Canada. The Supreme Court held that section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees both freedom of association and freedom not to bind, but that workers in a work environment largely dominated by a union are beneficiaries of union policy and should therefore pay union fees, regardless of membership status. . .