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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT