ILNews

Court: 2-member board could affirm ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the National Labor Relations Board that a northern Indiana steel company must recognize a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the company.

In New Process Steel, L.P., v. National Labor Relations Board, Nos. 08-3517, 08-3518, 08-3709, and 08-3859, the 7th Circuit consolidated the separate appeals by New Process Steel and the National Labor Relations Board following the board's conclusion New Process and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, had enacted a valid collective bargaining agreement.

Union members had to vote on a new collective bargaining agreement with New Process. The parties mentioned the agreement needing to be ratified, but New Process never specified what that process should entail. Based on union bylaws, if a majority of employees didn't vote to approve the contract, the union would then take a vote to strike, in which a two-thirds vote was needed. If employees didn't vote to strike, then the union would accept the contract. That happened in this case, so union representatives told New Process they had an agreement and the collective bargaining agreement was executed.

New Process then decided it wanted to resume negotiations because of complaints it received regarding how the first agreement was accepted. The company also announced it was withdrawing its recognition from the union after receiving a decertification petition.

An administrative law judge found the company had to accept the union contract. The National Labor Relations Board affirmed and also ordered the company to deal with the union as the bargaining representative of the employees.

A key issue in the appeal is whether the board was able to affirm the decision of the ALJ because only two members of the five-member board voted. Statute allows a smaller, three-member panel to have authority to rule on issues, and also allows for two members to constitute a quorum if the third person is unavailable. Due to the expiration of term limits and board vacancies, the vote was made only by the two-person quorum.

The issue of whether the NLRB can proceed with the two-person quorum is pending in several circuits at this time, wrote Judge Joel Flaum. The plain meaning of the statute supports the board's delegation procedure and it had authority to hear the labor dispute in this case and to issue orders regarding the unfair labor practices claim and New Process' withdrawal of recognition of the union, wrote the judge.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the validity of the collective bargaining agreement. New Process argued the agreement was never ratified as they requested; however, the company never specified what ratification meant and the method to be used. The board's conclusion that New Process can't refuse to recognize the contract because the union didn't follow the company's definition of ratification has a reasonable basis in law. New Process can't insist on any particular method of ratification.

The appellate judges also dismissed New Process' argument that because they believed ratification meant one thing and the union believed it meant another method, there was no "meeting of the minds" and thus, no contract. But because the parties didn't negotiate the meaning of ratification or the method to use, the union was free to decide what method to employ.

Lastly, the 7th Circuit affirmed the board's order forcing New Process to recognize the union as the valid collective bargaining representative for the plant employees. Because the agreement was valid, the company couldn't withdraw recognition from the union.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT