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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT