ILNews

Judges: Dispute can be arbitrated

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A union and the owner of the facility the union wants to organize can proceed to arbitration to decide whether the facility is a covered workplace under an agreement requiring neutrality, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

In United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. TriMas Corporation, No. 07-1688, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) brought an action in federal court to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act after TriMas Corporation refused to submit a dispute with the union to arbitration.

USW informed TriMas, which was a subsidiary of Heartland Industrial Partners, it wanted to organize a TriMas plant in Auburn, Ind., which it believed was considered a "covered workplace" subject to the provisions of an agreement executed between TriMas and USW that required neutrality by TriMas when organizing. The agreement also included an arbitration clause.

USW and Heartland agreed the company and its subsidiaries would remain neutral during organization efforts and would recognize a union if the majority of employees agreed to have USW represent them. The company had its subsidiaries execute agreements with USW directly.

Later, leaders from Heartland and USW wrote a memorandum outlining which plants could be targeted for unionizing based on how amenable the plants would be to the efforts. The Auburn plant wasn't listed in the memorandum. USW never signed the memorandum and no other written agreement about the issue was executed.

When USW tried to get assurances from TriMas that it would remain neutral during an organizing effort at the Auburn plant, TriMas refused; the company also refused to submit the dispute to arbitration, arguing that the Auburn plant wasn't a "covered workplace" under the agreement between TriMas and USW as a result of the memorandum.

USW filed suit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, which granted USW's motion for summary judgment.

The District Court was correct in granting summary judgment for USW, compelling arbitration, and refusing to consider evidence submitted by TriMas because the evidence was irrelevant to the question of the arbitrability because it didn't have to do with the interpretation of the arbitration clause itself, wrote Judge Richard Cudahy. Under the language of the agreement between TriMas and USW, the Auburn plant would be a "covered workplace" because the agreement doesn't list specific plants that it covers.

"Because this dispute is covered by the plain language of the arbitration clause and by nothing else, it should be submitted to arbitration," he wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT