Search form

West Virginia Court Unblocks Right to Work Law

By Marla N. Presley, Douglas G. Smith, Mariah H. McGrogan and Zachary J. Mueller
  • October 2, 2017

West Virginia’s right to work law will be enforceable beginning October 15, 2017. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has dismissed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the legislation. Morrisey v. West Virginia AFL-CIO, et al., No. 17-0187 (Sept. 15, 2017). The law prohibits both compulsory union membership and compulsory dues for union representation.

The Act

In February 2016, the West Virginia legislature passed the Workplace Freedom Act over the veto of then-Governor Earl Ray Tomblin.

The Act provides that a person, as a condition of continued employment, may not be required to:

  1. Become or remain a member of a labor union;
  2. Pay union dues, fees, assessments, or similar charges; or
  3. Pay any charity or third-party dues, fees, assessments, or other charges.

W.Va. Code § 21-5G-2.

The Act also prohibits a union and an employer from entering into a collective bargaining agreement that compels all employees to join the union.

The Act applies to any contract entered into, modified, renewed, or extended after July 1, 2016.

A person who knowingly requires another person, as a condition of continued employment, to become or remain a member of a labor union or to pay dues, fees, assessments, or similar charges to the union, any charity, or a third-party is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $500-5,000. Civil penalties also attach for violations or threatened violations of the Act. Notwithstanding the Act, however, when a union assumes representation of a workplace, federal and state laws require the union to fairly represent all employees, regardless of their union membership.

Unions Sue

Four days before the Act was to take effect in 2016, several labor unions sought an injunction in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County against the Act’s enforcement. The labor unions argued, in part, that the Act was unconstitutional as it violated their associational rights, represented an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation, and violated their liberty interests by requiring them to expend their labor for nonunion employees without the ability to charge a fee. The unions argued that if the law took effect, they would be unable to bargain for compulsory membership and fees in new collective bargaining agreements without violating the law.

Lower Court Grants Injunction

The Kanawha County judge enjoined enforcement of the Act, finding the labor unions had demonstrated both (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and (2) irreparable harm if the Act became effective on July 1, 2016.

The West Virginia Attorney General, a named defendant in the Kanawha County case, petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to overturn the injunction.

Supreme Court Decision

In considering the propriety of the injunction, the Supreme Court was mindful that “twenty-seven other states have adopted right to work laws similar to West Virginia’s, and the unions have not shown a single one that has been struck down by an appellate court.” Therefore, the Court found the unions had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims and overruled the temporary injunction. It further found that the Kanawha County judge had abused her discretion in granting the injunction.

The Court remanded the case for the lower court to conduct a final hearing on the merits of the parties’ contentions.

Next

Under West Virginia Appellate procedure, the decision does not take effect until the mandate issues, which terminates the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Unless shortened or enlarged by Court order, the mandate will issue 30 days from the date of the opinion.

In this case, as the opinion was released on September 15, 2017, the case should be remanded on October 15, 2017, and the injunction should be dissolved that same day. The Supreme Court has encouraged the Circuit Court to move quickly on the remaining issues before it.

Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss these developments and your organization.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 15, 2017

Top Five Labor Law Developments for October 2017

November 15, 2017

Home health aides who successfully objected to the collection of “fair share” fees without their consent may not proceed as a class, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, has ruled, affirming a lower court’s determination. Riffey v. Rauner, No. 16-3487 (7th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017). The home health aides... Read More

November 3, 2017

What Did National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin’s Term Mean for Employers?

November 3, 2017

Richard F. Griffin, Jr.’s term as National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) was marked by a dogged defense and pursuit of bolstering the rights of unions and employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Griffin, a former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, was the NLRB GC... Read More

October 19, 2017

Top Five Labor Law Developments for September 2017

October 19, 2017

An employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged an employee who protested an unlawful confidentiality policy, even though the employee protested without the involvement of any coworkers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held. NLRB v. Long Island Ass’n for AIDS Care, Inc., No. 16-2325 (2d... Read More

Related Practices