ILNews

Battle over RTW heats up in courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Lake Superior Court Judge John Sedia handed Indiana’s right-to-work law a pink slip, conventional wisdom held that the Indiana Supreme Court would overturn that decision and put the law back to work.

Commentators noted even though Sedia entered a declaratory judgment on one count of the complaint, he dismissed four other counts.

However, Sedia knocked down Sections 8 and 10 of the right-to-work law because they violated the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition against demanding services without “just compensation.” Those two sections, most in the legal community say, are the heart of the law.

gruber Gruber

Without Section 8, which bars any requirement that an individual join a union and pay dues, and Section 10, which makes violating Section 8 a crime, Indiana does not have a right-to-work law.

If the Supreme Court affirms the Lake County order, “it could really turn (the law) on its head,” said Andrew Gruber, partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. “Does the law survive if the decision is upheld? I don’t think so.”

Few expect Indiana’s right-to-work law would be left to die should the Supreme Court affirm. More likely, the Indiana General Assembly would again take up the measure, but some in the legal community believe for any new right-to-work law to hold muster with the courts, lawmakers will have to first rewrite the state’s constitution.

Two complaints

In James M. Sweeney, et. al. v. Gregory Zoeller, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, et. al., 45D01-1305-PL-52, Sedia provided a careful examination of state law, federal law, court precedent and the Indiana Constitution before he ruled that Indiana Code 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 violate Article I, Section 21 of the state’s constitution.

“There is no Court which is more loathe to declare any state statute unconstitutional than this one,” Sedia wrote in his order issued Sept. 5, 2013. “(Indiana Code) 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 stand clothed with the presumption of constitutionality. Debate regarding the wisdom or folly of this statute (about which the Court has purposely avoided using its title) lies in the political arena, not with the courts.”

torr Torr

Immediately after the ruling was issued, the attorney general’s office filed an appeal to the Supreme Court and vowed it would “aggressively defend the authority of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature as we successfully defended this same statute from the same plaintiff who challenged it in federal court.”

The Sweeney complaint in state court is part of a two-pronged attack on the right-to-work law by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150. The union is also arguing James M. Sweeney v. Mitch E. Daniels, Jr., 13-1264, in the federal courts.

Both suits focus on Section 8, Subsections 2 and 3, of the measure but look at it through the lens of the Indiana Constitution and federal labor law.

The author of Indiana’s right-to-work law, Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, does not believe the union’s argument will convince the Supreme Court.

“We had a lot of awfully smart lawyers look at the language before we passed it,” he said. “I’m fairly confident it will be found to be constitutional.”

Torr had introduced a right-to-work bill in the Legislature since the 2004 session. He touted the benefits as attracting employers to Indiana and allowing individuals to make the choice themselves of whether or not they want to join a union.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Lake County order, Torr said he is confident the Legislature would redraft the troubling language, using the Supreme Court’s opinion as a guide.

Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, sees little chance the state’s highest court will affirm. The court has given “excessive deference” to the Legislature and passed up most opportunities to explain what the state’s constitution means to Indiana.

deLaney-ed-mug.jpg DeLaney

A strong opponent of right-to-work, DeLaney questioned how the courts could find that a corporation is a person (referring to the Citizen’s United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court) and not find that a union is a person. Instead, while federal law is requiring labor organizations to provide fair representation to all workers, even non-members, in a unit, the state is not allowing compensation for that representation.

DeLaney applauded Sedia’s decision. “I think it was well reasoned and rather courageous on the part of the judge,” he said.

Dale Pierson, general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, said he was “very pleased in that the judge seemed to understand the constitutional argument we’re making.”

In the federal suit, the union is asserting the state steps outside the authority granted by Congress by not requiring employees to pay their “fair share” of the cost of collective bargaining. This section, Pierson said, allows for “free riding,” the term used to describe workers who do not pay union dues but still receive the benefits of representation.

Pierson maintained states are allowed to regulate union security clauses but that authority is limited to contractual requirements that all employees become members. Indiana’s right-to-work law goes beyond that by prohibiting any payment of dues, fees or assessments.

On the state level, the labor organization is arguing the same section violates the Indiana Constitution because the law is requiring unions to work without “just compensation.”

nierman Nieman

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division dismissed the union’s federal argument. Consequently, Local 150 appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and presented oral arguments Sept. 12.

Pierson was cautious to read too much into the 7th Circuit judges’ questioning, but he felt they seemed to understand the union’s point that Subsections 2 and 3 are pre-empted by federal law.

Constitutional questions

Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor of labor and employment law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, is not so certain the Lake County decision will be overturned. He said Sedia made such a “tightly reasoned” argument that the moderate justices on the Supreme Court might accept it.

dau schmidt Dau-Schmidt

The union’s position that the taking of a product or service cannot be done without payment mirrors conservative ideals. If he were to put money down, Dau-Schmidt said he would bet that politics will prevail and Sedia’s decision will be reversed, but he would not bet a lot.

However, if the ruling is upheld, Dau-Schmidt said the only way Indiana could get another right-to-work law to stand up in court would be to amend the state constitution. The “taking clause” in Indiana’s founding document not only covers products, like many state constitutions, but goes further to also include services.

An amendment would likely be to remove the service language. But, again, that would put conservatives in an unusual position. The Republicans would be arguing that government does have the power to take services without providing compensation — not a traditional conservative view.

Ogletree Deakins attorney Todd Nierman is not persuaded by the constitutional argument.

“With all due respect, I believe (Judge Sedia’s) decision is wrong and ultimately will be overturned,” he said.

The court held the state is demanding the union provide services for free. Nierman countered Indiana is not doing that because it is not demanding unions represent anybody. A labor organization chooses to represent workers at a particular business and if the organization decides there are too many free riders, it can leave without any consequences.

Still, should the Supreme Court affirm the Lake County order, Nierman, like Dau-Schmidt, does not see a legislative solution. He questions how the General Assembly could rewrite the law to be constitutional.

Negotiations

Although Sedia stayed his order pending appeal, his ruling could have a practical impact. Nierman said at the negotiating table unions and employers could point to the decision.

Unions may argue for a provision to be added to contracts that if the Lake County ruling is upheld, then union security language, making membership a condition of employment, is revived, he said. Employers would likely counter the right-to-work law is still valid so security language is illegal.

“It’s not practical for unions and employers to wait and see” what the Supreme Court is going to do, Nierman said.•

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. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

  2. Both sites mentioned in the article appear to be nonfunctional to date (March 28, 2017). http://indianalegalanswers.org/ returns a message stating the "server is taking too long to respond" and http://www.abafreelegalasnswers.org/ "can't find the server". Although this does not surprise me, it is disheartening to know that access to the judicial branch of government remains out of reach for too many citizens (for procedural rather than meritorious reasons) of Indiana. Any updates regarding this story?

  3. We have a direct genuine provider for BG/SBLC specifically for lease, at leasing price of 4+2 of face value, Issuance by HSBC London/Hong Kong or any other AA rated Bank in Europe, Middle East or USA. Contact : Mr. Johnson Hatton Email:johnsonhatton@gmail.com Skype ID: johnson.hatton007 Intermediaries/Consultants/Brokers are welcome to bring their clients and are 100% protected. In complete confidence, we will work together for the benefits of all parties involved. All inquires to Mr. Johnson Hatton should include the following minimum information so I can quickly address your needs: Complete contact information: What exactly do you need? How long do you need it for? Are you a principal borrower or a broker? Contact me for more details. Johnson Hatton

  4. I've been denied I appeal court date took a year my court date was Nov 9,2016 and have not received a answer yet

  5. Warsaw indiana dcs lying on our case. We already proved that in our first and most recent court appearance i need people to contact me who have evidence of dcs malpractice please email or facebook nathaniel hollett thank you

ADVERTISEMENT