Ogletree Deakins: Court Upholds Indiana's Right-to-work Law and Clarifies Ambiguities | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: Court Upholds Indiana's Right-to-work Law and Clarifies Ambiguities | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses Sweeney v. Daniels, in which a union challenged Indiana's right-to-work law in federal court. The US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that the law does not violate the contracts or ex post facto clauses of the US Constitution. The District Court also held that Section 3 of the law does not create an exception for building industries, but instead reaffirms Section 8 of the law, which prohibits union security clauses.

Ogletree Deakins: Court Upholds Indiana's Right-to-work Law and Clarifies Ambiguities

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 24 Jan 2013Indiana, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses Sweeney v. Daniels, in which a union challenged Indiana's right-to-work law in federal court. The US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that the law does not violate the contracts or ex post facto clauses of the US Constitution. The District Court also held that Section 3 of the law does not create an exception for building industries, but instead reaffirms Section 8 of the law, which prohibits union security clauses.