Indiana decision to strike down Right-to-Work law should not stand

Judge John Sedia of the Lake County, Ind., Superior Court has held that the state’s Right-to-Work law violates the state constitution. While the Sept. 9 decision is disappointing, neither union officials nor union critics should put much stock in it. The state will appeal the case to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is very likely to reverse...

Judge John Sedia of the Lake County, Ind., Superior Court has held that the state’s Right-to-Work law violates the state constitution.

While the Sept. 9 decision is disappointing, neither union officials nor union critics should put much stock in it. The state will appeal the case to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is very likely to reverse the decision. Until then, the law remains in effect.

The entire decision is based on a misunderstanding of labor law, and should be reversed on appeal.

The lawsuit was brought by Countryside, Ill.-based Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. In his ruling, Judge Sedia said that the state’s Right-to-Work law was in conflict with Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution. That section protects private property rights and also prohibits the state from requiring that services be provided “without just compensation.”

In a Right-to-Work state, workers cannot be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of holding on to a job. Union lawyers argued that unions must provide representation to all workers in any bargaining unit, meaning a legally recognized group of workers, such as teachers in the Chicago Public Schools, that perform similar jobs for the same employer and therefore may choose to bring in a union to represent them under state or federal labor law. Therefore, Judge Sedia ruled that unions are entitled to dues from all workers that they represent: both union members and nonmembers.

Historically, unions have been expected to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. That’s common practice, but it is not legally required. While it is unusual, it is possible for a union to negotiate a contract that only applies to its own members, leaving workers who refuse to join the union to work out their own terms. Union leaders generally insist that the contracts they negotiate cover non-members so they canmaximize the union’s influence over the workplace.

Furthermore, a union can always disclaim interest in a bargaining unit, giving up its right to representation authority. This is not something union officials like to advertise, but it is frequently done – quietly – when union officials realize they have lost support from workers in a bargaining unit and are likely to be removed from representing them.

So there are at least two different ways a union can avoid representing non-members: it can leave non-members to fend for themselves, or it can walk away from the entire bargaining unit. And since unions are not obligated to represent non-members, they are not entitled to union dues, either legally or morally. Which is why this decision should not stand.