Second court knocks out Indiana's labor law on constitutional grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two years after Indiana’s right-to-work law fought its way out of the Statehouse, the measure has suffered another knockout blow in a state court.

Plaintiffs have successfully convinced two courts that the Indiana Constitution has given the controversial statute a glass jaw.

In July, Special Judge George Paras of Lake Circuit Court overturned the state’s labor law in United Steel, et al. v. Zoeller, 45C01-12-7-PL-00071. The judge agreed with the labor organizations that the statute violated Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution which bars the state from demanding “particular services” without just compensation.

Labor-15col.jpg Opponents of Indiana’s right-to-work law have successfully convinced two state trial courts to find the statute unconstitutional. (IL file photo)

Paras’ ruling comes a little more than 10 months after Lake Superior Judge John Sedia found Indiana’s right-to-work law violates the same constitutional provision. The state has appealed that decision, and the Indiana Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Gregory Zoeller, et al. v. James Sweeney, et al., 45S00-1309-PL-596, on Sept. 4.

Legal scholars say the “smart money” is on the justices reversing the Sweeney decision and upholding the right-to-work law. However, there is very little caselaw focusing on the “particular services” portion of the provision to indicate the Supreme Court’s thinking on this issue. And should the court affirm, the solution for right-to-work proponents might be to amend the state constitution.

To date, 24 states have right-to-work laws, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc. Many of these laws faced legal challenges when they were enacted, said Anthony Riedel, spokesman for the foundation, but Indiana is a bit of an outlier because of its constitution.

Many states have constitutional prohibitions on taking property without compensation but no other state, with the exception of Tennessee, also includes services in that prohibition.

Pointing to Tennessee and the other states’ courts that have given right-to-work laws the green light, Riedel is confident Indiana’s version will survive.

“From our position, it’s pretty clear right to work is constitutional,” Riedel said. “They’ve been upheld in other states.”

‘Eviscerates the basic right’

James Wieser, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the United Steel case, believes some may be too quick to disregard the ruling simply because it comes from Lake County, which has a strong reputation for unionism.

Although both Sweeney and United Steel reached the same conclusion, Wieser said the latter ruling is “pretty significant” because the court had a full briefing and considered all the facts, evidence and testimony. In Sweeney, the court made a preliminary determination on the state’s motion to dismiss.

“I think it’s a legal issue. I think it’s a legal matter,” said Wieser, of Wieser & Wyllie in Schererville, explaining the Sweeney ruling was based on fact and not because of political affiliation.

Indiana’s right-to-work law prohibits requiring workers to join or remain a member of a union and making nonmembers pay dues, fees or any kind of charges to the union.

garrison-brian.jpg Garrison

Plaintiffs in United Steel noted it cannot exclude workers who do not pay for its service from the bargaining unit because the National Labor Relations Act mandates all unions represent members and nonmembers alike. The federal law does allow for “fair share” by giving labor organizations the ability to collect some compensation from nonmembers.

However, since the Indiana right-to-work statute prevents a union from collecting reimbursements from the nonmembers, the plaintiffs argued the state is essentially demanding the union provide a service for free, which violates the “particular services clause” of the Indiana Constitution.

The state countered, among other things, that right-to-work laws are specifically authorized by Congress, and that the plaintiffs don’t have standing as they failed to show how the law impacts them in such a way to violate Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution. It is federal law alone that imposes the duty of fair representation on the plaintiffs.

Paras disagreed.

“The RTW Statute eviscerates the basic right that a person be compensated for the good and valuable services that a person provides in commercial endeavors and is the type of law that the Particular Services Clause was intended to bar,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

Few rulings

The constitutional argument made in Sweeney and United Steel was not unexpected by proponents of the measure when the right-to-work bill was signed into law, said Faegre Baker Daniels LLP partner Brian Garrison.

“While the challenge was anticipated,” Garrison said, “I don’t think it was anticipated that the law would be found to be unconstitutional.”

Two labor law scholars, Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and Robert Brookins, professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said the unions in Indiana make a valid argument.

Both noted the conflict created between the state and federal laws will harm the unions because workers will have little incentive to pay for representation they will receive anyway free of charge. Unions will have to expend resources to non-paying members of the bargaining unit, which will hurt revenues and force paying members to subsidize the nonmembers.

“That doesn’t even resemble any kind of fairness,” Brookins said.

The Indiana Supreme Court has examined the particular services clause just a few times – most recently in Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991), and Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003) – and issued narrow opinions finding the clause was not violated.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson dissented in both opinions. He maintained in Sonnenburg the state’s requirement that patients in a state mental health hospital work did violate the particular services clause. But in Cheatham, while he disagreed with other parts of the majority’s reasoning, he agreed the state in that circumstance was not demanding services without just compensation.

In Sonnenburg, the court did establish a two-pronged test to determine whether the state was demanding “particular services” to be rendered. The first prong asks whether the service provided had been compensated in the past, while the second prong asks whether the service that is being required of a party is something that is not required generally of all citizens.

Although the law professors doubt the justices will affirm the Lake County ruling, Dau-Schmidt did see a problem the Supreme Court might have with the law. He speculated the provision that makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require compensation from nonmembers might seem particularly coercive to the court.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the law because of that provision, then the Legislature could fix the wording and keep the law in place, Dau-Schmidt said.

If the Supreme Court finds the statute does violate the state constitution, then the state might have to pass an amendment that removes the services clause. Or, Brookins said, the state could insert an exception into Article 1, Section 21 that excludes unions. In that situation, the IU McKinney professor said it’s likely that attorneys would find a way to use the exception to their clients’ advantage.

Whatever happens, Brookins does not expect the Supreme Court’s ruling to have much impact beyond Indiana’s borders.

“There is a movement afoot in this nation to basically undermine public sector unions. Private sector unions are already struggling,” he said. “I don’t think what is done in this state is going to have any great influence. I believe the movement will continue.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.