ILNews

SCOTUS rules on Indiana steel plant case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on a case about a northern Indiana steel processing plant, overturning the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and effectively limiting how a federal labor-relations board is able to conduct business regarding employee and union rights.

In a split 5-4 decision today in New Process Steel v. NLRB, No 08-1457, the nation’s justices overturned a 7th Circuit decision from last year and agreed that two of a total five-person National Labor Relations Board can’t effectively handle business when all members aren’t present or the spots are vacant.

The case involves a Butler-based steel-processing plant, which was involved in a collective bargaining agreement dispute in late 2007 that set the stage for this lawsuit. At the time, the five-person board was short three members so that only two were present to conduct business – about 600 case decisions in a 27-month period. New Process was involved in a dispute with the local AFL-CIO, which was negotiating a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of the company workers. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the plant, and an administrative law judge ruled in the union’s favor. New Steel appealed to the NLRB; the only two sitting NLRB members approved the ALJ decision and ordered the plant to accept the union contract.

On appeal, the sides disputed 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 it 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 7th Circuit affirmed the ALJ and NLRB decisions, though other courts have ruled differently and the topic is one playing out in several Circuits throughout the country. The justices accepted the case to resolve that conflict and ruled against the government.

The majority reversed and remanded the case in favor of New Steel, holding that the National Labor Relations Act requires the NLRB to maintain at least three members as quorum in order to use the authority given to it by the full board. Justice John Paul Stevens authored the majority opinion, concluding “We are not insensitive to the Board’s understandable desire to keep its doors open despite vacancies. Nor are we unaware of the costs that delay imposes on the litigants. If Congress wishes to allow the Board to decide cases with only two members, it can easily do so. But until it does, Congress’ decision to require that the Board’s full power be delegated to no fewer than three members, and to provide for a Board quorum of three, must be given practical effect rather than be swept aside in the face of admittedly difficult circumstances.”

However, Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonya Sotomayor joining in disagreement.

“It is not optimal for a two-member quorum to exercise the full powers of the Board for an extended period of time,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Court’s revisions leave the Board defunct for extended periods of time, a result that Congress surely did not intend. The Court’s assurance that its interpretation is designed to give practical effect to the statue should bring it to the opposite result from the one it reaches.”

This ruling will likely impact multiple cases already pending nationwide – five more cases are before the SCOTUS, with 69 pending before the appellate courts. Those will likely be remanded to the NLRB, which now has four members.
 

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT