Loading...
On Thursday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary injunction against unionizing more than 12,500 in-home child-care providers by one of Minnesota’s largest public-employee unions. The move to unionize in-home child-care providers has drawn national attention both for and against it, and has affected the profession.
While many independent professionals seemed relieved to avoid unionization, union leaders seem assured that they are going to win this battle.
Jennifer Munt, a spokeswoman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees brushed aside the injunction as a “temporary roadblock” and said, “We are moving full-speed ahead, because child-care providers want a union.”
An appeal regarding the organizing of similar care-givers from Illinois is waiting for the US Supreme Court’s leave, and the temporary injunction in the Minnesota case is going to be in effect until the US Supreme Court decides to hear the related appeals or reject them.
The Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is handling both the appeals.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Peter Semmens, vice president of the foundation, said in a statement about Thursday’s ruling that “Minnesota’s child-care providers are no longer under imminent threat to be forcibly unionized in a union they want nothing to do with.”
The mission of the foundation is to “eliminate coercive union power.”
However, Minnesota Governor, Mark Dayton has attributed the roadblocks to unionization to “right-wing extremists,” and his office is reviewing the case. A spokesman for the Governor said that his office continues to support the right of these workers to vote on whether to join a union.
Initially, Dayton tried to start unionizing by the call for an election through an executive order last year, but a judge struck down the order. A new law raised the call for unionization again, but opponents went to court with two separate lawsuits. The court ruled the lawsuits were premature and Thursday’s temporary injunction resulted from an appeal to the rejection.
