CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a circuit court abused its discretion in a case involving the state government and unions.
The circuit court’s order must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, the majority opinion states. The Supreme Court reversed the order and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
Justice Beth Walker authored the majority opinion. Justice John Hutchison and Justice Bill Wooton dissent and authored a dissenting opinion.
Earlier this year, the state Legislature passed the West Virginia Paycheck Protection Act, which prohibited state employees from continuing to deduct union dues and employee association membership fees from public employees’ wages as they have in the past. One month before the law was effective, several labor unions and employee associations sought to enjoin the enforcement of the law.
The unions argued in the circuit court that the law violated certain constitutional rights and the enforcement would harm them. The circuit court agreed and enjoined the enforcement of the law.
“A preliminary injunction is a powerful remedy that should issue 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. We conclude that the likelihood of Respondents’ success on the merits of their claims—that the new law violates their constitutional rights—is far less than the circuit court believed it to be.”
In the dissenting opinion, Hutchison and Wooton wrote that they respectfully dissented with the majority and believed that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion with its decision.
"It is axiomatic that courts base their rulings on the evidence presented by the
parties, not on technicalities," the dissenting opinion states. "In this regard, the Paycheck Protection Act, which prohibits public employers from withholding union dues from employees’ paychecks, was slated to take effect 90 days after passage. With the clock ticking, the respondents raced to circuit court to seek a preliminary injunction and offered witnesses, documents and affidavits to support their claim that enforcement of the new law would cause them harm."
The dissenting justices noted that the courts in West Virginia are required to provide a level playing field where citizens can fully assert their rights.
"Cases are to be decided on their merits, not on technicalities, and circuit judges are in the best position to allow the parties to give voice to their respective positions," Hutchison wrote. "This Court needs to stand aside, let the parties present their evidence below, and let the circuit court, not this appellate court, decide the case on the merits of those arguments in light of the evidence. Because that did not happen in this case, and because the majority went ahead and resolved the merits of the case in what is in effect an advisory opinion, I must respectfully dissent."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 21-0559