Post by TonyV on Feb 4, 2015 17:26:03 GMT -5
Commonwealth Journal – Pulaski County
Kelley: Right to work ordinance on ‘back burner’
Posted: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 6:30 am
BY JEFF NEAL
Pulaski County Judge-Executive Steve Kelley said he will not seek a second reading of the controversial right to work ordinance — at least not at this time.
“I think the magistrates want to wait and watch to see what happens with some of the other counties who are establishing right to work ordinances,” Kelley said. “It’s not a dead issue, but it’s on the back burner at the moment.”
Pulaski Fiscal Court passed a first reading of the right to work ordinance last month. The law would have prevented labor unions from forcing local workers to join their organizations as a condition of employment. Kelley had predicted that by becoming a right to work county, Pulaski could draw more industry.
But the day after the first reading of the ordinance in Pulaski County, Hardin Fiscal Court was hit with a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking that its right to work ordinance be declared invalid because it is preempted by other federal laws.
The lawsuit states that the National Labor Relations Act authorizes a state or territory to enact laws prohibiting union security agreements, which require union membership or the payment of union fees as a condition of employment.
“Hardin County is not a ‘state or territory’ as contemplated in NLRA ... and is therefore not authorized to enact a law prohibiting execution or application of union security agreements,” it states.
It also claims that the ordinance would prevent unions from entering into “check-off agreements” for payroll deductions of dues, fees or assessments and “hiring hall agreements” that give unions the exclusive ability to refer people for employment.
The NLRA grants labor organizations the right to enter into hiring hall agreements and payroll deductions are lawful under the LMRA, the lawsuit states.
In addition to the Hardin lawsuit, Jack Conway, Kentucky’s Attorney General, has weighed in with an opinion that local governments don’t have authority to pass such ordinances.
Kelley: Right to work ordinance on ‘back burner’
Posted: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 6:30 am
BY JEFF NEAL
Pulaski County Judge-Executive Steve Kelley said he will not seek a second reading of the controversial right to work ordinance — at least not at this time.
“I think the magistrates want to wait and watch to see what happens with some of the other counties who are establishing right to work ordinances,” Kelley said. “It’s not a dead issue, but it’s on the back burner at the moment.”
Pulaski Fiscal Court passed a first reading of the right to work ordinance last month. The law would have prevented labor unions from forcing local workers to join their organizations as a condition of employment. Kelley had predicted that by becoming a right to work county, Pulaski could draw more industry.
But the day after the first reading of the ordinance in Pulaski County, Hardin Fiscal Court was hit with a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking that its right to work ordinance be declared invalid because it is preempted by other federal laws.
The lawsuit states that the National Labor Relations Act authorizes a state or territory to enact laws prohibiting union security agreements, which require union membership or the payment of union fees as a condition of employment.
“Hardin County is not a ‘state or territory’ as contemplated in NLRA ... and is therefore not authorized to enact a law prohibiting execution or application of union security agreements,” it states.
It also claims that the ordinance would prevent unions from entering into “check-off agreements” for payroll deductions of dues, fees or assessments and “hiring hall agreements” that give unions the exclusive ability to refer people for employment.
The NLRA grants labor organizations the right to enter into hiring hall agreements and payroll deductions are lawful under the LMRA, the lawsuit states.
In addition to the Hardin lawsuit, Jack Conway, Kentucky’s Attorney General, has weighed in with an opinion that local governments don’t have authority to pass such ordinances.