State Attorney General Patrick Morrisey filed a petition Wednesday with the state Supreme Court, asking the court to overturn a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the state's right-to-work law.
Kanawha Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey issued the injunction last August, as part of an ongoing challenge of the new law by the West Virginia AFL-CIO and numerous other unions. Those unions contend the law, passed last year, represents an unconstitutional taking of union resources, since unions would be required to represent employees in union shops who opt not to pay union dues under the law.
In the petition to the court, the attorney general's office argues that the injunction has caused "irreparable harm to the state, and sowed confusion among employees, unions, and employers who lack clarity as to how to lawfully negotiate collective bargaining agreements while these proceedings continue."
"The negative impact caused by this injunction demands immediate relief," Morrisey said in a statement. "I urge the Supreme Court to consider our arguments and reach an expedited decision so as to eliminate confusion and mitigate damage to our state."
In response, state AFL-CIO President Josh Sword said West Virginia operated as a state for more than 150 years without a right-to-work law.
"Now, suddenly there's irreparable harm to the citizens of the state? Give me a break," he said.
Sword said he was not surprised by Morrisey's petition to overturn the injunction.
"We knew it was ultimately going to end up at the state Supreme Court," Sword said of the unions' challenge of the law. "It doesn't matter to us whether it happens sooner or later, we're prepared for our day in court."
Under the law, employees in union shops could not be compelled to pay union dues.
In granting the preliminary injunction, Bailey said the law could present financial harm to labor unions, since workers would be "seriously discouraged" from joining.
"Why, the employee would ask, should I pay for something the law requires be made available to me for nothing?" Bailey stated in her order, noting the law could "seriously burden a union's ability to recruit and retain members."
In the petition to the Supreme Court, the attorney general argues that the duty of fair representation is in federal law, not state law.
While the primary argument in the union's challenge is that the law amounts to an illegal taking of union resources, the suit also challenges unclear language in the new right-to-work law that seems to exempt building and construction trades unions, as well as language in the definitions section of the law that could be interpreted as limiting it to public employees unions.
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to correct those portions of the law (SB330), after removing a provision in the original draft of the bill that would have made the changes effective retroactively to July 1, 2016.
Reach Phil Kabler at philk@wvgazettemail.com, 304 348-1220, or follow @PhilKabler on Twitter.