By Lindsay McLaughlin
ILWU Legislative Director

The organized right wing has forced President George W. Bush to bow down before them. They successfully trashed Supreme Court Justice nominee Harriet Miers, a Bush crony and legal counsel, claiming she was not conservative enough. Then they pushed Bush to nominate Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor replacement. While the media has focused on Judge Alito’s rulings on several hot-button issues such as abortion rights and gun laws, there are so many other matters that affect the quality of life of working people. Alito has a long record on issues of concern to working people that strongly suggest he sides with big business over ordinary people.

Alito spent 15 years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. There he ruled on many labor law cases and dissented from the majority opinion from a more conservative perspective. Throughout Alito’s tenure on the court, the vast majority of judges, currently two-thirds, have been Republican appointees. By dissenting from their already conservative opinions, Alito demonstrated just how far he is out of the mainstream.

In cases covering minimum wage, discrimination, retirement, public employee rights and interpretations of union labor law Alito displayed a pattern of alternatively narrowing or actively interpreting statutory language, but the outcome is almost always the same: he does whatever is best for the business interests at the expense of the employees.


LABOR UNION CASES
In Caterpillar v. UAW Local 786, the Third Circuit Court upheld a system that the company and the union negotiated for union stewards to process grievances over violations of the contract without losing pay or benefits. This is a common practice in union shops and one that had been used at this particular plant for more than 18 years. In the wake of a strike, the company suddenly challenged the legality of the system and sought to have it overturned by the courts. The Third Circuit rejected the company’s argument. But in dissent, Alito sought to overturn the practice to benefit the company and disable union grievance procedures.

In this case, Alito dissented largely on a very narrow interpretation of the wording of the Labor Management Relations Act by interpreting compensation for work as "wage income" and "by reason of" work as fringe benefits, effectively excluding whatever else the union and the employer negotiated in good faith in their collective bargaining contract. Had Alito’s position been in the majority, unions would be unable to bargain for company-paid positions, such as grievance chairmen. It also would have severely limited unions’ power in collective bargaining. Contracts would only be allowed to cover wages and benefits and work time, not union hall activity, dispatching or other collectively decided upon arrangements.

In Luden’s Inc. v. Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers Local 6, the majority held that the employer’s duty to arbitrate a disagreement over work conditions survived the contract termination through an implied contract agreement between the parties. But Alito ruled against the union.

In Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department of Navy, the court found that the Navy was violating federal labor law for public employees in refusing to give a union the names and address of employees it was seeking to organize. Alito dissented, voting to disable the organizing drive by denying the union access to the employee names.


SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS
In RNS Services v. Secretary of Labor, the court found that a mining services company was violating safety laws under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. The court rejected the company claim that it was not covered by mining safety laws, seeking to narrow application of the law to mines, not coal processing plants associated with such mines. Alito dissented and voted to exempt the facility from those mining safety regulations.

Alito dissented based on several factors, including his misreading of the majority opinion. He asserted that "the majority holds that any person who performs any listed activity under any circumstances is subject to the Mine Safety and Health Act, not what the majority ruled. They had a much narrower scope than Alito implies.

Alito, who in other cases is excessively verbose when it comes to narrowing the meaning of language stated, "While this interpretation may not be the most literal reading of the statutory language, it seems to me to represent the best we can do with the unfortunately worded provision that confronts us." Here, Alito throws out the literal interpretation of the statute because it is not in the best interest of big business.


MINIMUM WAGE PROTECTIONS
In Reich v. Gateway Press, the court majority found that a newspaper chain had violated federal minimum wage and overtime laws, but Alito sought to interpret the law in the way that would have excluded the newspaper workers from protections under the law.


EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
In a race discrimination case, Bray v. Marriot Hotels, Marriot sought to deny the plaintiff, an African-American woman who alleged racial discrimination, the right to even present her case to a jury. The Third Circuit argued that, given facts in the case, it was up to a jury, not judges, to decide if discrimination had occurred. In dissent, Alito argued for a panel of judges to decide.

In Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company, a race and age discrimination case, Alito would have upheld a lower court’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine his employers about the hostile environment he experienced. The majority of the court found that evidence was "relevant to a key aspect of the case," and decided the exclusion illegally undermined the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.


PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
In an assault on the civil rights of government employees, Alito voted in the minority in Homer v. Gilbert, arguing that governments do not violate the due process rights of employees when they are suspended without a hearing and without pay. Alito rejected the majority’s view that some minimal hearing was required beyond the initial accusation—in this case a drug charge never proven in court—to justify loss of a job. Alito declared that a mere accusation justified loss of pay and employment.


RETIREMENT AND PENSION CASES
In a case of great importance to retiring workers, DiGiacomo v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, the Third Circuit found that a Teamster driver, who had worked in a union position from 1960 to 1971 and then from 1978 onwards, had to be credited for the time working before 1971 for calculating his pension. This was based on an interpretation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which prohibits forfeiture of benefits due to a break in service.

Alito, in a lone dissent, argued for destroying the worker’s retirement and for denying the worker credit for early years of work. In his dissent, Alito argued that promises made to a worker may not apply if that worker was not continuously employed. Alito used ERISA as an excuse to wipe away years of service, the opposite of the intent of the act. For workers approaching retirement who had pre-ERISA employment, Alito’s reasoning would be very detrimental.

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this law reversing a 2000 Court ruling by Alito, who found that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the law to allow workers to care for a sick family member or a new-born baby. Lawmakers who penned the bill wanted to rectify what they considered "inadequate job security" for working mothers, who often bear the brunt of child-rearing responsibilities. In the 2000 opinion, Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Alito upheld a lower court ruling backing the state of Pennsylvania, taking Congress to task for enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Kyle Weimmann helped with
research on this story.