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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT