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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT