ILNews

Lake County judge strikes down provision in Indiana’s right-to-work law

Marilyn Odendahl
September 10, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a ruling that never used the popular term “right-to-work,” Lake Superior Court Judge John Sedia found a provision in Indiana’s 2012 labor law violated the state constitution’s ban on demanding services without just compensation.

Sedia dismissed four counts of the original complaint brought by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, and other plaintiffs. After an in-depth examination of state law, federal law, court precedent and the Indiana Constitution, however, he held that the section of the right-to-work law which requires unions to provide services at no cost to non-union employees to be unconstitutional.

“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. “(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.”

Sedia entered a declaratory judgment that IC 22-6-6-8, which prohibits an individual from being required to join a labor organization and pay dues, fees or other charges, and IC 22-6-6-10, which makes forcing employees to pay union dues a Class A misdemeanor, violate Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution.

The Indiana Attorney General’s office, calling Sedia’s ruling incorrect, stated that it immediately would file an appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, said the Zoeller “will 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,”  

Democratic leaders in the Indiana House of Representatives and Indiana Senate hailed the ruling as another example of failure for the right-to-work law.

“But finally, one branch of government made sense,” House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath of Michigan City said in a statement. “Hoosiers’ middle class wages lag badly behind other Americans and one judge believes our law is not just for those with money and power.”

The law sparked fierce debates in the Indiana Statehouse during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions. Democrats opposed the measure, staging walkouts to prevent a vote, but Republicans were able to pass the bill which former Gov. Mitch Daniels signed.

The first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleged the right-to-work provision that compels Local 150 to provide a particular service to the employees it represents without receiving any pay violated Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution. That section of the state constitution holds that “No person’s particular services shall be demanded without just compensation.”

Sedia pointed to Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E. 2d 398 (Ind. 1991), for a definition of what constitutes a “demand.” Here the Indiana Justices found that “a request becomes a demand when it is backed up with the use or threatened use of physical force or legal process which creates in the citizen a reasonable belief that he is not free to refuse the request.”

He also highlighted the federal labor law which mandates unions provide services such as processing grievances and negotiating contracts on behalf of members and non-members alike.

Sedia concluded IC 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 criminalizes the act of a union being paid for the services the federal law demands it provides to employees.

 “…the effect of IC 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 under the current, long-standing federal labor law, is to demand particular services without just compensation,” he wrote. “The Court therefore has no choice but to find that IC 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 violate Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution.”

The five-count complaint challenging the right-to-work law on constitutional grounds was filed in Lake County on Feb. 11, 2013. Sedia dismissed the other counts, finding, under the Indiana Constitution, the right to work law did not deprive Local 150 members of equal protection, did not infringe on Local 150’s free speech rights and is not an ex post facto law.
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT