Union's Specious Claim in Indiana RTW Case - Trying to use anti-slavery clause to deny worker freedom

Mackinac Center - An Indiana county judge has held that the Hoosier state's right-to-work law is unconstitutional based on an Indiana constitutional provision that originated in 1816 and was meant to limit slavery.

Lake County Judge John Sedia, however, delayed implementation of the ruling until it could be appealed. The decision is almost certain to be overturned.

The suit was brought by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, AFL-CIO and some individuals. In essence, they argue that the duty of fair representation is the same thing as slavery. This is not the first time the plaintiffs have made such an outlandish claim, having earlier lost a similar case in federal court.

To understand this claim, a little labor law history is helpful.

Labor unions in both the federal Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act sought mandatory collective bargaining. Thus, the unions wanted control over every employee's wages and benefits, even if an individual employee wanted nothing to do with the union and wanted to negotiate their own deals.

Having been granted monopoly bargaining status by Congress, some unions then discriminated against black employees (who had been banned from union membership due to racism) during negotiations. In 1944, in the case of Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., a black railroad employee challenged a collective bargaining agreement that gave preference to white union employees over black nonunion employees. The United States Supreme Court recognized the "duty of fair representation" and held that "Once a craft or class has designated its representative, such representative is responsible under the law to act for all employees within the craft or class, those who are not members of the represented organizations, as well as those who are members."   More  PTG