Business

West Virginia Supreme Court throws out injunction for Paycheck Protection Act

CHARLESTON -- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction Monday blocking a bill prohibiting union dues from automatically being taken from paychecks.

In a 3-2 decision released Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court ordered a preliminary injunction issued in June by Kanawha County Circuit Judge Tera Salango blocking enforcement of House Bill 2009, the Paycheck Protection Act, be dissolved and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings.

HB 2009 prohibits employers and payroll agents from withholding a portion of an employee's wages and salaries for political activities on behalf of a union or any other private organization without express written authorization by the employee. The bill also prohibits state, municipal, and county governments from withholding union or club dues from a public employee's wages or salaries.

Justice Beth Walker wrote the opinion on behalf of Chief Justice Evan Jenkins and Justice Tim Armstead. In the opinion, Walker said Salango "abused her discretion" when granting the preliminary injunction June 16 on behalf of the West Virginia AFL-CIO and a dozen other labor unions.

"A preliminary injunction is a powerful remedy that should be issued only after a court has carefully considered the parties' arguments, evidence and relevant authorities," Walker wrote. "Our review of the circuit court's order preliminarily enjoining the new law from taking effect reveals that it is a product of less than careful consideration."

Walker said Salango should not have granted a preliminary injunction because the unions were unable to show how they would be irreparably harmed by having to switch from automated deduction of dues by government entities from paychecks to other third-party systems, such as payment systems commonly used by customers to subscribe to video streaming services.

"Respondents claim that HB 2009 violates certain constitutional rights. But Respondents have not directed the Court to any relevant authority supportive of their claim that HB 2009 violates their speech, associational and equal protection rights," Walker wrote. "And, Respondents have not made a clear showing of the foundation of their contract clause claim."

"The circumstances of this case... called for the circuit court to deny injunctive relief to Respondents," Walker continued. "The court abused its discretion when it did not."

Justice John Hutchison penned a dissent to the majority's decision on behalf of himself and Justice William Wooten. Hutchison said the circuit court's preliminary injunction only maintained the "status quo," allowing dues to be deducted as normal until the lower court made a ruling in the case.

"I must respectfully dissent to the majority opinion, which holds that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction -- an injunction that did no more than maintain a status quo ante that has existed for more than half a century -- in order to give the parties an opportunity to marshal all of their evidence and fully brief their respective legal positions," Hutchison wrote.

Hutchison accused Walker, Evans and Armstead of going beyond ruling against the preliminary junction, litigating the case before the circuit court has rendered a decision that can be appealed to the higher court.

"...While the majority purports to remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings, it has 'so completely resolved the underlying constitutional issues that it renders such remand nothing but a perfunctory exercise,'" Hutchison wrote.

"In practical effect, the majority has deprived the respondents of their day in court by making it clear, on the basis of nothing more than the evidence respondents were able to produce for an emergency hearing held within three weeks of filing their complaint, that they can't -- and won't -- win," Hutchison continued. "I refuse to accept this proposition at this early stage of the proceedings, before the first deposition has been taken or the first interrogatory sent."

The West Virginia Legislature passed HB 2009 March 19, with Justice signing the bill 12 days later. The West Virginia AFL-CIO and 11 other unions filed suit May 20 in Kanawha County Circuit Court along with West Virginia State Police Cpl. J.W. Smith Jr. and Kanawha County school teacher Jacob Fertig to block implementation of the law.

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the preliminary injunction in October from the Attorney General's Office and Robert Bastress Jr., counsel for the AFL-CIO and union groups.

Attorney General Patrick Morrisey released a statement Monday afternoon praising the decision.

"We are pleased with today's decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia," Morrisey said. "We have consistently said that the West Virginia Constitution does not require the State to seize public employees' wages and direct them to unions. Today, the Court agreed. The Court's decision prevents the hardworking people of West Virginia from having their hard-earned money diverted for speech and activities they never intended to support."

A request for comment from the AFL-CIO was not returned.

Steven Allen Adams can be reached at sadams@newsandsentinel.com.