August 7, 2020

Volume X, Number 220

August 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Unions Score Two Important Victories in Consecutive Weeks

In the past two weeks, unions have secured dual notable victories that are likely to spark additional organizing efforts nationwide. On July 17, an Indiana judge struck down that State’s “right-to-work” (RTW) law as unconstitutional. The following week, on July 22, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a 3-1 decision permitting a so-called “micro-unit” of Macy’s, Inc., employees to organize cosmetics employees within a single retail location in Massachusetts. These developments reflect a growing trend of unions to use courts and administrative bodies to establish pro-union policies in the absence of legislative support for the Employee Free Choice Act and to leverage those policies in their organizing activities.

In United Steel v. Zoeller, the United Steel Paper, and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (United Steel) union challenged the constitutionality of Indiana’s controversial RTW law, originally enacted in February 2012. The RTW law prohibits unions from requiring employees to become bargaining unit members or pay dues to the union as a condition of employment. Since its enactment, the RTW law has prohibited unions from negotiating collective bargaining agreements that require Indiana employees to pay union dues. Under Indiana law, unions that violate this statute risk the criminal penalty of being charged with a gross misdemeanor. Further, the RTW law provides individual employees with private claims eligible for monetary damages and attorney’s fees.

In its declaratory judgment lawsuit against the Indiana State Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, United Steel alleged the RTW law violated the Indiana State Constitution’s “Particular Services Clause,” Article I, Section 21, which disallows the government from demanding services free of charge. The union claimed the RTW law allows non-bargaining unit employees to demand services from the union without compensation. In striking down the RTW law as unconstitutional, Lake County, Indiana, Judge George C. Paras wrote: “There are few more abhorrent notions than that of government seizing private property or compelling a private person into the service of the government itself or into the service of another private person without the government paying just compensation for the property taken of the service compelled.”

In granting summary judgment to United Steel, the court rejected Indiana’s argument that the RTW law itself is not a demand for purposes of the Particular Services Clause, holding that the “explicit threat of criminal prosecution,” administrative proceedings by the Indiana Department of labor, and private rights of action all constitute “demands” upon labor unions by the State of Indiana for particular services without compensation. The court also dismissed Indiana’s argument that the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 provides a shield against the protections granted by Indiana’s State Constitution. Although the State of Indiana has filed an appeal of this decision, the RTW law remains enjoined from enforcement under Judge Paras’ Order.

This development now allows unions to freely bargain on contracts that require union dues payments for representation and other services. Until this development, many Indiana-based union employers continued to operate under pre-2012 contracts, refraining from re-negotiating such contracts until the legality of the law had been decided (or implementing opt-out procedures to comply with the RTW law). Now, empowered by Judge Paras’ ruling, organized workplaces can expect unions to pursue new collective bargaining agreements with increased vigor to increase their funding.

The United Steel v. Zoeller case follows on the heels of an earlier Lake County, Indiana, lawsuit that similarly found the RTW law in violation of the Indiana State Constitution Article 1, Section 21. In September 2013, Indiana Judge John Sedia issued a declaratory judgment in Sweeney v. Zoeller, which held the RTW law unconstitutionally compelled labor unions to provide services to individual employees without compensation. United Steel v. Zoeller takes that ruling one step further by explicitly prohibiting the enforcement of the RTW law, declaring it null and void.

In a second notable union-side victory, decided less than a week after United Steel v. Zoeller, the NLRB issued a decision further bolstering a significant shift in organizing tactics. In Macy’s, Inc. v. Local 1445, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the NLRB permitted a small sub-group of employees to unionize within a single location of the nationwide retailer. Relying on the basic principles set forth in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83, and other precedent, the NLRB permitted the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) to organize a “micro-unit” of specialized employees, thereby creating unique challenges for uniformly managing the company’s workforce as a whole.

There, the UFCW sought to represent a relatively small group of retail sales employees working in the company’s cosmetic and fragrances department. Although such employees comprised less than one-third of the company’s Saugas, Massachusetts-based total workforce, the NLRB cited numerous unique traits of those employees that were different from sales employees in other store departments. Specifically, employees in the cosmetic and fragrances department worked on an “on-call basis,” did not commonly transfer to other store departments, rarely interacted with other departments, were compensated on a commission basis, and had a practice of limiting sales transactions to registers in their own department. These factors, the NLRB held, were sufficient to create a readily identifiable group and reflected a shared community of interest separate and apart from other sales employees.

In its opinion, the NLRB specifically rejected Macy’s argument that applying the principles of Specialty Healthcare (upholding the formation of micro-units) would “allow a proliferation of micro-units based solely on the products sold by employees” whose organizing efforts would result in “chaos and disruption of business.” The NLRB firmly disagreed, calling such concerns “pure speculation,” and holding that Macy’s cosmetic and fragrance employees were an appropriate unit for bargaining. Citing a number of other retail-based decisions permitting the organization of similar units, the NLRB stated: “…the petitioned-for unit is appropriate under retail department store precedent, even without reference to Specialty Healthcare.” Noting that the employees of Macy’s cosmetic and fragrance department work exclusively in their own department, have a unique departmental structure, and lack regular contact with employees in other departments, the NLRB declared such employees to be “sufficiently different from other employees so as to justify representation on a separate basis.”

The Macy’s, Inc. case reflects ongoing efforts by unions to continue pressing the advantage of a pro-labor Administration. Through such “divide-and-conquer” tactics, unions, through the NLRB, are expected to pursue increased micro-unit organizing efforts. By targeting occupation-specific groups of employees, union organizers have a distinct advantage to overcome traditional avoidance strategies. In light of this decision, companies that have employees in specialized fields should be diligent to eliminate the types of unique, department-specific management and sales practices that swayed the NLRB to permit a small group to organize within the larger workforce.

The effect of these decisions cannot be underestimated. In the wake of failed legislative efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, the labor movement has found some receptivity to its efforts in the courts and through the NLRB’s administrative process. Despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous invalidation of NLRB decisions rendered by a recess-appointment Board (NLRB v. Noel Canning), union organizing remains a potent obstacle to companies that wish to manage employees without third-party interference.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLPNational Law Review, Volume IV, Number 213


About this Author

Kenneth J. Yerkes Employment lawyer Barnes Thornburg

Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Department for two decades, Ken Yerkes has spent over 30 years successfully fighting for his clients' rights and business objectives at the bargaining table, in arbitration and federal and state court, as well as in plants across the country through proactive training, counseling and union avoidance campaigns.

Ken's ability to transform complex scenarios into workable strategies has earned him not only his clients' trust, but also acclaim as one of the country’s recognized leaders in labor and employment law. He is a fellow...

John Koenig, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Atlanta and Indianapolis, Labor and Employment Law Attorney

John T.L. Koenig is a partner in the Labor & Employment Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He maintains a national, full-service practice representing management exclusively in all aspects of labor and employment law.

Traditional Labor

Mr. Koenig represents companies in the grievance and arbitration process, collective bargaining, strike preparation, union organizing and election matters, and in unfair labor practice and representational cases before the NLRB. He frequently trains supervisors on effective and lawful communications during union bargaining, strikes, and organizing campaigns.

Employment Law

Mr. Koenig provides advice and counsel to companies to comply with laws such as Title VII, FMLA, ADEA, FLSA, OSHA and WARN. He works with company executives to develop and implement practical and effective HR and employee relations strategies to help avoid employee lawsuits. Mr. Koenig also defends companies before the EEOC, Department of Labor, OSHA, other administrative agencies as well as state and federal courts throughout the country. Mr. Koenig drafts executive employment, separation, and non-compete agreements and advises clients on safeguarding confidential, proprietary and trade secret information and goodwill.

David B. Ritter Barnes Thornburg Law Firm Labor and Employment Law Attorney Chicago

David B. Ritter is a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment Law Department and co-chairs the Logistics and Transportation Practice Group. He represents management nationwide in virtually all areas of labor and employment law, including employment discrimination and harassment claims, wage and hour disputes, non-compete, trade secret and restrictive covenants and employment torts.

With nearly 30 years of experience representing public and private companies, Mr. Ritter has...

William A. Nolan Labor and Employment Law Attorney Barnes Thornburg Law Firm Columbus

William A. Nolan serves as the Managing Partner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Columbus, Ohio, office, which he opened in 2009. He is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department. Bill has extensive experience as a litigator, trial lawyer and counselor. His practice includes a broad range of issues that organizations face in our rapidly changing competitive, legal and workplace environments. In short, he works to help management structure organizations, practices and relationships to proactively minimize the business disruption of disputes, and to help clients prevail when...

Mark Kittaka, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Fort Wayne and Columbus, Labor and Employment Law Attorney

Mark S. Kittaka is a partner and the administrator of the Labor and Employment Law Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Fort Wayne, Indiana office. Mr. Kittaka’s practice covers all areas of labor and employment law including federal and state litigation concerning discriminatory practices and retaliation claims, including, but not limited to: Title VII race, sex, color, and religious discrimination claims; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process); Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); the Family and...