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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT