Posted on 02/28/2019 9:42:21 AM PST by buckalfa
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A circuit judge has struck down key components of West Virginia’s 2016 right-to-work legislation.
Kanawha Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey issued the opinion Wednesday, three years after the Legislature first passed the law.
“The new law will require unions and union officials to work, to supply their valuable expertise and to provide expensive services for nothing,” Bailey wrote in her 46-page ruling. “That is, in a word, arbitrary.”
The overriding issue is whether employees who join a workplace represented by a union have to pay some form of dues, whether they embrace union representation or not.
The unions argued that employees who don’t would receive the benefits of collective bargaining without providing financial support to pay for those activities. In other words, they said, the right-to-work law takes union property.
Bailey concluded that association would not be forced on anyone. Instead, the judge wrote, the fees collected by unions “essentially function as taxes on collective bargaining members for the costs of ‘legislative’ and governmental services.”
The judge also concluded that prohibiting a union from collecting such fees constitutes a taking of property: “It takes money from the union, and derivatively from its members, and essentially gives it to free riders.”
She wrote, “Membership is obviously the lifeblood of any labor organization. Members’ dues provide unions with nearly all of their revenues for operating expenses, and members’ commitment and participation give the organizations their capacity to represent workers effectively in dealing with employers.
“S. B. seriously hampers the unions’ ability to recruit new members and retain old ones.”
The judge went on to write, “If unions cannot exact agency fees, employees would be able to receive, without any cost to them, the full benefit of the union’s services in negotiating and administering the contract. And if workers can get those services for free, they would have no incentive to join the union or remain a member.
“In fact, those who do join or stay in a union would be paying a penalty for the privilege because their dues would have to be raised to underwrite the union’s services provided to the free riders.”
West Virginia labor unions celebrated the ruling.
“Judge Bailey was right-on with her ruling,” West Virginia AFL-CIO President Josh Sword stated.
“She made it very clear that this bill violates the West Virginia Constitutional rights of unions and individuals with regard to association, property and liberty.”
Bailey had issued an injunction in 2017 while she considered her ruling. The state Supreme Court overruled the injunction later that year, scolding the judge for taking so long.
The state’s unions failed to establish the likelihood of success based on the merits of three constitutional claims, wrote Justice Menis Ketchum in the court’s majority opinion in 2017.
“Because of the far-reaching effect of Senate Bill 1 and its potentially substantial impact upon public interests, in the future, we encourage the circuit court to act with greater celerity in bringing this case to a resolution,” Ketchum wrote in the majority opinion knocking down the injunction.
Since then, the Supreme Court has changed significantly. Ketchum faces sentencing on a federal wire fraud charge. Former Justice Allen Loughry, who was also in the majority on that opinion, has been sentenced to two years in prison on fraud charges. With them in the majority ruling was current Chief Justice Beth Walker.
Robin Davis, a justice who dissented, resigned from the court. Justice Margaret Workman, who dissented in part and concurred in part, remains on the court.
The current Supreme Court includes former Republican lawmakers Evan Jenkins and Tim Armstead, who was speaker of the House of Delegates when the law passed. The other new justice is former Circuit Judge John Hutchison.
Bailey’s opinion issued today takes some digs at the earlier Supreme Court ruling.
“The September 15, 2017 opinion, while criticizing the lower court’s reasoning in determining to issue the preliminary injunction, never clarified the standard for a preliminary injunction in this state, as no Syllabus Point has ever been adopted by the Supreme Court setting forth those standards.”
The state Attorney General’s Office was still assessing Bailey’s ruling today, comparing it to what the Supreme Court has said.
“We are reviewing the circuit court’s decision, comparing it to the Sept. 15, 2017, state Supreme Court ruling and will have more to say at the appropriate time,” said Curtis Johnson, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office.
Right-to-work legislation was such a priority during the 2016 session that it was officially Senate Bill 1. It was introduced in the Senate and sent to Judiciary on the very first day of the that year’s legislative session, Jan. 13.
It passed both houses and was sent to then-Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin by Feb. 8. He swiftly vetoed it Feb. 11, and both houses overrode his veto the very next day.
The law went into effect July 1, 2016. Judge Bailey approved a temporary injunction supported by unions on August 10, 2016. She then filed a written version of the preliminary injunction in early 2017.
“The new law will require unions and union officials to work, to supply their valuable expertise and to provide expensive services for nothing,”
They have to do anything. If they want to keep agitating, let them so it on their own dime.
No one is “forcing” union leadership to do a d*mn thing.
Oh, look, another black-robed tyrant. Impeach this bitch.
Nonsense - her ruling flies in the face of established precedent in the courts finding that right to work laws (where union membership is not a requirement) are perfectly constitutional.
“Judges don’t make political rulings” - Justice Roberts projected.
A judge appointed by a democRat governor. What a surprise!
I thought her decision was bad. Then I read her reasoning and I realized it is not a bad decision. What it is is a stooooopid decision. Her reasoning behind it is laughable.
I think we’ve found AOC’s long lost identical twin.
“The new law will require unions and union officials to work, to supply their valuable expertise and to provide expensive services for nothing,”
—
Valuable expertise? at what? Extortion, beatings, bribery, theft, yeah, right, expertise.. Haaa.
Once MI and WI passed RTW it was all over but the shouting for the liberal puke unions, RTW is here to stay!
We can’t have our law enforcement people endangered, their families must not have to love in fear. It is time to eradicate MS-13 and every gang or organization which might threaten LE. This must be a nationwide thrust. No more “Mr. Nice Guy” when dealing with them - to the gallows!!!
Did you post on the wrong thread?
This idiot judge is saying that you should be compelled to pay money to people you are not involved with? That’s like if I had a crime watch group with 6 neighbors paying money for warning signs and cameras to catch thieves, and it catches a neighbor’s porch that wasn’t involved with us having something stolen from it, and that video footage catches the crook. Does that neighbor have to now pay into the neighborhood watch because they “benefited”?
The company has the right to not extend the benefits from whatever the union contracts stipulate to the non-union people if they dont want, but if they do, then so what? Maybe they just do it to keep everything uniform.
I recall reading supreme court oral arguments over very similar issues. Can’t recall if a ruling has already been made on that, or if it is still pending.
Ha!...unions. I went to work for a major railroad late 1995 in a small town. The culture did not like outsiders...leaders, managers, and coworkers. I stuck it out for 18 years. Dealing with discrimination, retaliation, blacklisting, hostile work environment, etc. Over these years I cried and begged my ‘union’ to help (I had to pay dues as a condition of employment). I got squat. The union said they did not have the resources to help those they deem could themselves. I was labeled this because I was ex-military and and a fighter. After those years, i folded and was medically retired due to the stresses I endured. Now in my late 50s, my life-career is over. I have no positive feeling for my representatives I paid so much for.
Sorry, just venting.
“Bailey concluded that association would not be forced on anyone. Instead, the judge wrote, the fees collected by unions “essentially function as taxes on collective bargaining members for the costs of ‘legislative’ and governmental services.”
In other words, in the opinion of this judge, citizens of West Virginia do not have a right to select the services they wish to purchase and unions have the authority to levy taxes on the citizens of West Virginia. Assuming Bailey is an attorney, I’m thinking she failed Logic 101.
West Virginia court precedents, or Federal/Supreme Court precedents?
Because she based her decision on her interpretation of West Virginia's constitution, so federal court decisions regarding the U.S. Constitution are not controlling even if the issues seem identical.
This is purely a matter of West Virginia law. She's still wrong as hell, but that ultimately has to be decided by the WV Supreme Court.
Yes, I did - thanks for the notice
Republicans had two years to pass the National Right to Work Act. Many co-sponsors. But they didn’t push. Now this. First of many court challenges...
Seems this ruling is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling a year or so ago that states people do not have to join the union or pay union dues in order to work somewhere. But then, as with all liberal judges, they only comply with the Supreme Court when they want to. These blacked robe activists need to be removed — completely.
Yes, I did - thanks for the notice
*******
LOL........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.