Morrisey v. Afl-Cio
Decision Date | 21 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 19-0298,19-0298 |
Parties | Patrick MORRISEY, West Virginia Attorney General, and the State of West Virginia, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. WEST VIRGINIA AFL-CIO; West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; United Mine Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Chaffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers, Local No. 175; Amanda Gaines; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Locals 141, 307, 317, 466, 596, and 968, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Lindsay S. See, Solicitor General, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners.
Mark H. Dellinger, Justin M. Harrison, Danielle M. Waltz, Benjamin J. Wilson, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., West Virginia Chapter.
Elbert Lin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Matthew B. Gilliam, Springfield, Virginia, Attorney for Amici Curiae, Donna Harper and The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
Richard R. Heath, Jr., Bowles Rice, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amici Curiae, The Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy and Americans for Prosperity.
Derk A. Wilcox, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, Midland, Michigan, J. Mark Adkins, Bowles Rice, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Mark A. Carter, Clayton T. Harkins, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amici Curiae, The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and The West Virginia Manufacturers Association.
Vincent Trivelli, The Law Office of Vincent Trivelli, Robert M. Bastress, Morgantown, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Respondents.
Loree Stark, American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia Foundation, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia Foundation.
Samuel B. Petsonk, Beckley, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, The West Virginia Employment Lawyers Association.
In 2016, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Workplace Freedom Act (sometimes "the Act"),1 making West Virginia the nation's twenty-sixth right-to-work state.2 For a second time, we consider the constitutionality of the Act, which prohibits collective bargaining agreements that require an employee to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges as a condition of employment, or as a condition for the continuation of employment, when the employee has chosen not to join a union. In Morrisey v. West Virginia AFL-CIO ( Morrisey I ),3 we rejected the arguments made here in the context of a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for a final hearing.
On remand and in the absence of any additional evidence or arguments, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled that the Act unconstitutionally infringes upon the rights of the plaintiffs below, primarily labor unions that are member organizations of the AFL-CIO4 ("Labor Unions") who represent both private and government workers in West Virginia. So, Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey, and the State of West Virginia (collectively, "the State"), appeal the circuit court's summary judgment order finding that the Act infringes upon the Labor Unions’ rights to associate, as well as their liberty and property rights.
We conclude that the Act does not violate constitutional rights of association, property, or liberty. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's contrary rulings and remand this case for summary judgment in favor of the State consistent with this decision.5
To better understand the issues in this case, we begin by discussing the relevant federal labor statutes. We then summarize the history of West Virginia labor laws leading up to and including the provision currently under scrutiny. Finally, we review the procedural facts leading to this appeal.
In 1935, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act ("NLRA").6 "[T]he conception of the Wagner Act was deeply rooted in labor's long struggle for the right to organize and bargain collectively." The Wagner Act: After Ten Years 5 (Louis G. Silverberg ed., The Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc. 1945). It has been described as an effort to reverse "years of misuse of the injunction in labor disputes and the distortion of the anti-trust laws into anti-labor weapons." Id. The NLRA was legislation enacted "to encourage collective bargaining." Morrisey I .7
Robert A. Taft, Forward to Fred A. Hartley, Jr., Our New National Labor Policy , The Taft-Hartley Act and the Next Steps , at xii (1948).
The Taft-Hartley Act made major changes to the NLRA. Several provisions of the resulting LMRA are significant to our resolution of this appeal. In particular, through the LMRA, Congress "prohibited a ‘closed shop,’ a union security agreement[9 ] whereby an employer agrees to employ only union members." Morrisey I .10 Instead, the LMRA "permits an employer and an exclusive bargaining representative to enter into an agreement requiring all employees in the bargaining unit to pay periodic union dues and initiation fees as a condition of continued employment, whether or not the employees otherwise wish to become union members." Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Beck .11
Beck .12 Under the LMRA then, a labor organization designated as the exclusive bargaining representative is permitted to enter into an agreement with an employer that allows it to collect certain union dues and initiation fees from all employees of the bargaining unit as a condition of their continued employment, regardless of whether the employees choose to become members of the labor organization.13 Additionally, an exclusive bargaining representative is empowered to bargain with the employer on behalf of all employees in a bargaining unit and owes a corresponding duty to provide representation, without hostility or discrimination, to all bargaining unit employees.14 A labor organization that has not achieved exclusive bargaining representation status does not receive these benefits or owe the corresponding obligations.
Importantly, however, the LMRA expressly preserves the freedom of states to enact laws that prohibit agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James C. Justice v. Afl-Cio
...Id. (amending W. Va. Code § 8-5-12 (eff. June 17, 2021)).10 164 W. Va. 736, 266 S.E.2d 444 (1980).11 Morrisey v. W. Va. AFL-CIO, et al. , 243 W. Va. 86, 842 S.E.2d 455 (2020).12 Morrisey v. W. Va. AFL-CIO, et al. , 239 W. Va. 633, 804 S.E.2d 883 (2017).13 The court entered an Amended Order ......
-
Tecnocap, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...enacted the Workplace Freedom Act ..., making West Virginia the nation's twenty-sixth right-to-work state." Morrisey v. W. Va. AFL-CIO , 243 W.Va. 86, 842 S.E.2d 455, 459 (2020) ; see W. Va. Code § 21-5G-1 to -7. "The Act vests workers with the right to choose for themselves whether they wi......
-
Justice v. W.Va. AFL-CIO
... ... Submitted: October 26, 2021 ... Appeal ... from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County The Honorable Tera ... Salango, Judge Civil Action Nos. 21-P-156 through 21-P-169 ... Patrick Morrisey, Esq. Attorney General Lindsay S. See, Esq ... Solicitor General Curtis R. A. Capehart, Esq. Deputy Attorney ... General Virginia M. Payne, Esq. Assistant Solicitor ... General/Deputy Attorney General Charleston, West Virginia ... Counsel for Petitioner ... ...
-
State v. Beaver
... ... at 615, 730 S.E.2d at 398, ... quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97, 99 S.Ct ... 939, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979)." ... Morrisey v. W Va AFL-CIO, 243 W Va 86, 127, 842 ... S.E.2d 455, 496 (2020) (Workman, J, concurring, in part, and ... dissenting, in part); see ... ...