ILNews

SCOTUS accepts Indiana steel plant case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court has agreed to take on a labor dispute issue involving a northern Indiana steel plant. The high court will consider whether the National Labor Relations Act allows the governing board to act when only two of its five positions are present to vote on labor disputes.

At its private conference late last week, justices granted certiorari in the case of New Process Steel, L.P. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 08-1457, which comes from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago following a National Labor Relations Board ruling.

In its May 1 ruling, the 7th Circuit affirmed the national board's decision that a steel company in Butler must recognize a collective-bargaining agreement between the company and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.

After a voting dispute about the agreement, an administrative law judge found the company had to accept the union contract; the National Labor Relations Board agreed. But a key issue arose because the NLRB had only two of five board seats filled to vote on the issue at the time. Statute allows a smaller, three-member panel to have authority to rule on issues and allows for two members to constitute a quorum if the third person isn't available. That's what happened in this case.

Deciding the two-person vote was legitimate, the 7th Circuit noted that the issue is one pending in several Circuits throughout the country. 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, authoring Judge Joel Flaum wrote.

In a petition for writ of certiorari, attorneys for New Process Steel asked the justices to accept transfer and side with a decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier v. NLRB, No. 08-1162, which held the national act explicitly requires the board to have three members "at all times" in order to function.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT