Searching for Skilled Manufacturing Workers? Solutions may be on the horizon

Michael L. Eckerle — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:06:07 +0000

Paul Davidson asked Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP client Ron Overton of Overton Industries in Mooresville, Ind., to speak in to this situation in a recent article exploring the serious employment shortage.

In the article, Davidson points out that Overton Industries is just one in a number of small tool and die firms looking for those who are skilled with their hands, as well as in math and science. While the demand for their services is high, the tool and die industry is struggling to supply goods because of a lack of skilled employment. “We lose a lot of work because we can’t turn it around quick enough,” Overton says in the article.

In response to this growing industry issue, Indiana manufacturers are invited to join us for the next Conexus Indiana Manufacturing Connections Program, sponsored and hosted by Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, on June 13. The event will discuss successful means of recruiting and retaining the skilled workers for which so many in the manufacturing industry are currently searching.

Please mark your calendars and plan to join us for an informative session offering solutions and interaction with others in the manufacturing industry. Registration will be available soon.

Click here to read the full article, ‘Tool and die makers desperately casting for workers,’ on the USA Today website.Rich Text Area

After recovering from an employment rollercoaster and the economic downturn, many in the manufacturing industry are now encountering a shortage of skilled laborers, including engineers, machinists and tool and die specialists. USA Today journalist Paul Davidson asked Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP client Ron Overton of Overton Industries in Mooresville, Ind., to speak in to this situation in a recent article exploring the serious employment shortage.

Please mark your calendars and plan to join us for an informative session offering solutions and interaction with others in the manufacturing industry. Registration will be available soon.

Click here to read the full article, ‘Tool and die makers desperately casting for workers,’ on the USA Today website.

Path:

The Best of Bingham: Anne Cowgur Elected Vice-Chair

Katherine Erdel — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:04:14 +0000

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and the Bingham Greenebaum Doll Women’s Forum are proud to recognize Anne Cowgur on her recent election as

Vice-Chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Litigation Section Executive Committee!

This is not Anne’s first (or only) leadership position within the IBA. She also serves as Chair of the IBA’s Women and the Law Division. If Anne’s accomplishments in that position offer any foresight into what her leadership will do for the Litigation Section, we are in for nothing but good things. In her role with the Women and the Law Division, Anne worked to create the first ever Women and the Law Division Symposium in 2011. The Symposium was recognized with the IBA’s Dr. John Morton Finney Award for Excellence in Legal Education (which we blogged about here).

Anne also shares her leadership and legal talents within our firm. She serves as the co-chair of the Women’s Forum and has been selected for inclusion in Indiana Super Lawyers for 2012 in the appellate division. She is also active in the Junior League.

Congratulations, Anne!

The Best of Bingham is a series of posts by the Bingham Greenebaum Doll Women’s Forum recognizing the professional and community successes of our members, our colleagues, and our clients.

In Case You Missed It: Partner Sue Beesley recognized for her involvement in the Super Bowl Village

editor — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:08:55 +0000

Congratulations and a ‘super’ thank you are due to partner Sue Beesley for her involvement in the planning and execution of the Super Bowl Village during the 2012 Super Bowl in Indianapolis.

In case you missed it, the Indianapolis Business

Journal highlighted the success of the Super Bowl Village in a recent article. The IBJ notes that the village was so popular that “[l]eague officials said a Super Bowl Village like the one in downtown Indianapolis for this year’s event will now be a requirement for future cities hosting the big game.” Sue worked with fellow host committee members to execute the plans for the village leading up to the big game.

At Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, we are committed to the communities we serve. Thank you, Sue, for extending that commitment to the Super Bowl Village through your hard work, time and innovation.

Excerpt from “NFL borrows from Indy’s Super Bowl playbook”

Once the group developed the village plan in late 2007 and early 2008, Dilts and Fuson, along with Bingham McHale partner Sue Beesley, were charged with executing the plan. Shiel Sexton loaned the host committee an employee, Shawn Hitchcock, for two years to build the village piece by piece.

Melangton said there are two reasons it won’t be easy for other host cities to replicate Indianapolis’ Super Bowl Village. First, Melangton said, the layout of cities like New York, Dallas and Miami could make it difficult to create “a center of energy.”

But Melangton thinks other host cities may have a bigger challenge.

“We are very fortunate here that we have a lot of people here who have been to a lot of big events, have a lot of diversified experience and a lot of great ideas,” Melangton said. “We have a collection of people who are really innovative thinkers that I think is going to be difficult to replicate.”

Click here to read the full story on the IBJ website.

Bingham Greenebaum Doll takes 3rd place in 2012 March Against Hunger

Moses Vejil — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:27:33 +0000

At Bingham Greenebaum Doll, we are committed to the communities we serve. That commitment includes our annual service in the March Against Hunger. The Indiana Attorney General’s office recently announced the 2012 March Against Hunger Division Winners. Bingham Greenebaum Doll placed 3rd in the large firms division. Fifty-one law groups participated this year, including firms of all sizes, sole proprietors and government agencies. The Attorney General’s office will present the Attorney General’s Cup at separate award ceremonies throughout Indiana.

Together, we raised more than 11,229 pounds of food and $51,172, for a total of 133.5 tons of assistance for our regional food banks. As a firm, Bingham Greenebaum Doll raised 569 pounds of food and $3,400. It was a record year with the largest collection of assistance in the history of the March Against Hunger. Thanks to all of our colleagues for supporting this worthy cause.

Last-Minute Reprieve? NLRB’s notice posting rule struck down and enjoined by two federal courts

William J. Kishman — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:13:48 +0000

Employer groups have contested the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial notice-posting rule since it was first published in December 2010. Since last Friday, they have scored major victories. First, on April 13, the United States Chamb

er of Commerce and a local chamber of commerce persuaded a federal district court in South Carolina to strike down the rule, which would have required most private employers to post a notice that informed employees of their rights under federal labor law. Subsequently, on April 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia enjoined the rule until it has had an opportunity to resolve an appeal of another lower court decision. Finally, on April 17, the board conceded the Court of Appeals’ injunction, and agreed that it would not implement the rule until the appeal was resolved. These decisions will prevent the rule from becoming effective as scheduled on April 30, and also could limit the board’s ability to issue additional rules in the future.

Court holds that the board overstepped its authority

The district court that struck down the rule agreed with the employer groups that the board overstepped its authority. Administrative agencies such as the board do not possess unlimited authority to issue rules, and may act only when Congress authorizes them to do so. Accordingly, to resolve the case, the court had to determine whether Congress authorized the board to issue the rule, either explicitly or implicitly through the terms of the National Labor Relations Act.

The board first argued that the Act expressly authorized it to issue the rule because the Act authorizes the board to issue any rule that is “necessary to carry out” other provisions of the Act. The court disagreed that the rule was “necessary to carry out” the Act because the Act itself does not require employers to post notices, thus the court reasoned that the rule cannot be necessary to carry out a provision that does not exist. Rather, the court held that the board “confuse[d] a ‘necessary’ rule with one that is simply useful.”

The board then argued that Congress implicitly authorized it to issue the rule, but the court again disagreed. It held that Congress authorized the board to perform essentially two functions, i.e., conduct representation proceedings and prevent and resolve unfair labor practice charges. The court reasoned that the rule would not further either of these two objectives; thus, it regulated an area that Congress did not intend to regulate.

Finally, the court looked outside the scope of the Act to discern Congress’s intent. It recognized that Congress had included language in other statutes (such as Title VII) that required employers to post notices, but had not included such language in the Act. For this reason, the court reasoned that, if Congress intended to impose such a requirement on employers, it would have done so through the terms of the Act.

Appellate court subsequently bars the rule

Four days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia solidified the employers’ victory when it enjoined the rule, thus blocking it from becoming effective for the time being. The rule was before the Court of Appeals because a separate employer group had appealed a lower court decision that upheld most of the rule. (This decision was discussed in a previous Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP Labor and Employment blog post.) The Court of Appeals held that it was appropriate to block the rule until it resolved the appeal and determined whether the rule was enforceable, thus implicitly recognizing that the rule could have significant legal problems. Shortly thereafter, the board issued a statement agreeing that it will not implement the rule until the appellate issues are resolved. The Court of Appeals has given the parties until June 29 to file appellate briefs, thus indicating that the injunction will last at least through the mid-summer.

More updates to come

Altogether, these decisions will significantly impact employers for two reasons. First, the district court’s decision strongly limited the board’s authority to issue rules that control employers’ conduct. Several commentators have expected the board to issue other rules in the near future; thus, if other courts follow this decision, it could curtail the board’s future agenda. For example, this decision could make it difficult for the board to issue a “card-check” rule, because such a rule may not be “necessary” to carry out the Act. (The decision likely would not impact the board’s recent representation election rules, however, because the court recognized that Congress authorized the board to control representation proceedings.)

Second, and perhaps more importantly, these decisions will prevent the rule from becoming effective as scheduled on April 30. Employers are not required to post the notice for now; however, they should pay close attention because there likely will be additional court action later this year. If you have any questions about this rule or your rights under federal labor law, please contact William J. Kishman or any other member of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s Labor and Employment practice group.

The Tell City Pretzels Trademark Story

editor — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:43:40 +0000

Learn more about the “Tell City Pretzels Trademark Story” in our video below.

For more information, contact Bingham Greenebaum Doll

partner Bill Kaiser, 812-482-5500 or bkaiser@bgdlegal.com.

Differential Utility Rates: Is Your Municipality at Risk?

David McGimpsey — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:25:02 +0000

As first appeared April 4, 2012 on the Inside Indiana Business Website

Indiana cities and towns are in the busine

ss of providing utility services to their constituents. Charging a higher rate for water and sewer utility service outside municipal corporate limits has been a common practice for municipalities in Indiana. Signed into law on March 19 by Governor Mitch Daniels, a statute now on the books affects the dynamics between rates inside and outside municipal boundaries, and local elected officials could find themselves in hot water if they are not prepared.

House Enrolled Act No. 1126 affects municipalities whose water and sewer rates for customers outside the municipality are more than 15 percent in excess of the in-municipality rate. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) now has jurisdiction over certain instances in which municipalities charge more for water or sewer service outside of their corporate boundaries. The law applies to every municipal sewer and water utility, even though municipal sewer utilities are otherwise unregulated by the IURC and even if a municipal water utility has “opted out” of IURC jurisdiction.

Leaders of cities and towns have an opportunity to continue charging different rates, but they need to act soon. A municipality can petition the IURC for approval of a from 15 percent to 50 percent rate differential if the rate ordinance was in effect on March 31, 2012. The petition must set forth the date on which the ordinance took effect, the percentage difference in the rates and the type of utility to which the ordinance applies. If the petition is filed and is determined to meet the requirements, “the [IURC] shall approve the petition, including the percentage difference between rates and charges described [in the petition].” If a municipality opts to file the petition, it must be done on or before September 30, 2012.

For future water rate ordinances (those adopted after March 31, 2012), the law provides that a municipality may petition the IURC for approval of its water rates that implement a new differential of greater than 15 percent or that increase an approved differential by 15 percent. The burden is on the municipality to demonstrate that the proposed rates are nondiscriminatory, reasonable and just. The law is unclear as to future sewer rate ordinances.

What’s the bottom line? For those businesses and residents located outside of municipal corporate limits, the General Assembly has provided an avenue for greater scrutiny of water and sewer rates where outside-the-municipality rates are more than 15 percent greater than the inside-the-municipality rate. As a local elected official, you need to know if your municipal utility charges more for customers located outside the municipal corporate limits, what the differential is and whether action is needed. You also need to be aware of the statutory requirements when implementing future inside/outside municipality rates.

For more information on utility rate regulations for municipalities, contact Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Dave McGimpsey at 317-686-5232.

Reducing Your Workforce? Evaluate reasonable factors other than age to satisfy new EEOC rule

Benjamin J. Lewis — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:33:04 +0000

In response to decisions by the United States Supreme Court in 2005 and 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published a new rule, effective April 30, 2012, which affects most employers. The final Rule addresses the extent to which

employers may avoid liability under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by using “reasonable factors other than age” when laying-off employees or otherwise modifying workplace rules and/or benefits that would have a discriminatory impact on groups of employees.

Employers occasionally implement otherwise neutral decisions – concerning new workplace rules, benefit changes or reductions in force – that have a disparate impact on older workers compared to younger workers. Under these circumstances, employers may be accused of unlawful age discrimination under the ADEA. Courts evaluating disparate impact age claims usually examine how an employer selects employees affected by a layoff or workplace rule. Absent overt age discrimination, employers may defend against these ADEA claims if their decisions do have a disparate impact by showing they are based on reasonable factors other than age. To establish that defense under the EEOC’s final Rule, employers must demonstrate that their employment decisions are: (i) objectively reasonable; (ii) designed to further a legitimate business purpose; and (iii) administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose. The Rule emphasizes the need for an individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular situation. It includes a list of considerations relevant to assessing reasonableness, which an employer should use, for example, to evaluate the criteria used to select affected employees. In an effort to analyze such decisions, employers should ask:

Are my decision-making criteria related to my business goal?
Are my decision-making criteria well-defined and can they be accurately applied?
Are my managers and supervisors educated on my decision-making criteria, and can they apply such criteria objectively – without being influenced by age-based stereotypes?
Will my decision-making criteria adversely impact older workers significantly more than younger workers?
Can I adjust my decision-making criteria to reduce any adverse consequences to older workers?

The EEOC provided examples of how to comply, as follows:

Example 1: A nursing home decided to reduce costs by terminating its highest paid and least productive employees. To ensure that supervisors accurately assessed productivity and did not base evaluations on stereotypes, the employer instructed supervisors to evaluate productivity in light of objective factors such as the number of patients served, errors attributed to the employee, and patient outcomes. Even if the practice did have a disparate impact on older employees, the employer could show that the practice was based on an RFOA because it was reasonably designed and administered to serve the goal of accurately assessing productivity while decreasing the potential impact on older workers.

Example 2: The same employer asked managers to identify the least productive employees without providing any guidance about how to do so. As a result, older workers were disproportionately rated as least productive. The design and administration of the practice was not reasonable because it decreased the likelihood that the employer’s stated goal would be achieved and increased the likelihood that older workers would be disadvantaged. Moreover, accuracy could have been improved and unfair harm decreased by taking a few steps, such as those discussed in Example 1.

If you need assistance in analyzing a new workplace rule or benefit, or reducing the size of your workforce, please contact a member of the Labor and Employment team at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP.

Over the Borderline: Indiana’s Right to Work Law may affect employers in neighboring states, too

Katherine Erdel — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:26:53 +0000

Effective March, 14, 2012, Indiana’s cheap cialis online

lank”>hot-button Right to Work Law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to require an individual, as a condition of employment, to:

Become or remain a member of a labor organization;
Pay dues, fees, assessments or other charges to a labor organization; or
Pay to a charity or another third party an amount that is equivalent to, or a pro rata part of, dues, fees or other charges required of a member of a labor organization.

It should be noted that this law does not affect contracts that were already in effect as of March 14, 2012. However, contracts that are created, modified, renewed, extended or amended after that date do become subject to the law.

While all four states that border the Hoosier state – Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan – do not have similar legislation yet, employers with operations that cross state lines and who experience an event that subjects them to Right to Work (a new labor contract, for example) may have some thinking to do.

States with Right to Work Legislation. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

For purposes of the law, “employer” means a person or entity employing at least one individual in Indiana. Thus, non-Indiana employers with employees who work across state lines in Indiana are subject to Indiana’s Right to Work Law and those employees may have the right to refuse to be members of a labor organization and pay dues as a condition of employment. Accordingly, such employers should make note of this important change.

If you need assistance on Right to Work or any labor-related issues, please contact the attorneys at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP for assistance.

The Best of Bingham: Congratulations Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson!

Katherine Erdel — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:30:52 +0000

The Indianapolis Bar Association gives a number of annual awards and regularly recognizes a wide variety of individuals in the legal community for good work. Only on occasion, however, does it bestow its most prestigious award – the Hon. Paul H. Buc

hanan, Jr. Award for Excellence.

The Buchanan Award is “given as is determined to be appropriate, to a member of the Association whose attainments as a lawyer have been notable, whose contributions to the Association have been unique and whose honorable service to the profession has been extended over a significant period of time. The award shall be given both to reward those accomplishments and inspire others to such service.”

In the past, the Indianapolis legal community has been inspired by Buchanan Award recipients like Judge James Kirsch (2008), James H. Voyles, Jr. (2011), and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP’s own Marty Hollingsworth (2007).

Since the first Buchanan Award was bestowed in 1990, five of the 17 recipients have been women. Quite an accomplishment for the women of our legal community, given that at least one of those past recipients, Hon. V. Sue Shields (1992) was the ONLY woman in her law school class.

Strike that – six recipients have now been women. This year, the IBA has selected Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana as the 2012 recipient of the award.

The Bingham Greenbaum Doll Women’s Forum and all of those at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP who have had the privilege of knowing and working with Judge Magnus-Stinson congratulate her on her award and thank her for her years of dedication and service to our community.

Judge Magnus-Stinson was recognized at the IBA’s Take a Law Student to Lunch event on March 22, 2012. Also at this lunch, the IBA recognized the Law Student of the Year Award recipients, including Sean McGoff. Sean is a law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and the son of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner and former IBA president Kevin McGoff. Congratulations to Sean, Kevin and the McGoff family on this recognition!