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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT