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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT