 |
|

Legal news from Friday, September 7, 2012 |
 |
|


Federal judge dismisses challenge to Arizona union election laws
Michael Haggerson on September 7, 2012 3:44 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] on Wednesday dismissed [opinion, PDF] a complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) [official website] challenging an Arizona state constitutional amendment that guarantees a vote by secret ballot for employee representation. The NLRB, an independent US agency that is charged with conducting elections for labor unions and remedying unfair labor practices, argued that Article 2 § 37 [text] of Arizona's Constitution acts to limit the means by which employees can choose union representation and conflicts with various sections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [29 USC §§ 151-169]. According to the NLRB, the NLRA provides methods in addition to secret ballot elections for private-sector employees to choose a union but contends that the amendment forecloses these options. The court ruled that, depending on how the amendment was implemented, it may not interfere with federal law. Therefore, it was improper at this time to declare the amendment unconstitutional. However, the court gave the NLRB the option to pursue future action [press release] if the method in which the amendment was implemented did indeed clash with federal law.
Restrictive collective bargaining laws have been advanced in several states within the last couple years. In February Indiana union members sued to block implementation of the state's new right-to-work legislation [JURIST report]. In a public referendum in November, Ohio voters rejected [JURIST report] a bill passed in March 2011 [JURIST report] which would have impacted Ohio's 400,000 public workers by limiting their ability to strike and collectively bargain for health insurance and pensions. Ten Wisconsin unions filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in federal court in June 2011 challenging the state's new collective bargaining law. According to the plaintiffs, the Wisconsin bill discriminates among groups of public employees and eliminates basic union rights, like bargaining, organizing and associating. In July 2011, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Idaho [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] blocking the enforcement of an Idaho anti-union law [SB 1007] that bans a union program that subsidizes employment for its members. The law, called the Fairness in Contracting Act, prohibits union programs used by construction workers unions that pool portions of union wages on a voluntary basis to subsidize union labor to enable union members to be hired at the collectively bargained salary.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal judge approves settlement in e-book conspiracy suit
Michael Haggerson on September 7, 2012 1:59 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on Thursday approved a settlement agreement [opinion, PDF] between the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] and certain e-book publishers in a price-fixing suit under the Sherman Act [text]. The DOJ alleges that Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, MacMillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster [corporate websites] conspired to fix the prices of e-books in response to Amazon's discount pricing strategy. Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster have agreed to the settlement, but the other defendants have elected to continue litigating the case. The settlement agreement requires the settling defendants to terminate the price-fixing agreements, prohibits retaliating against e-book retailers based on the retailer's e-book prices, requires the termination of the "most favored nation" clauses of their agreements which prevented other retailers from undercutting Apple's prices, prevents e-books publishers from transmitting "sensitive information" between each other, and creates a series of reporting requirements to the DOJ to monitor any potential anti-competitive agreements. The agreement also requires the settling defendants to phase out their agency agreements whereby the publisher, rather than the retailer, sets the price of each title and the retailer takes a fixed percentage of sales. The agency model was an attempt to combat Amazon's discount pricing strategy under the old system where retailers purchased books at a wholesale price and established whatever price they wanted. Apple and the non-settling defendants argued that the settlement will greatly harm brick-and-mortar book stores which cannot compete with Amazon's discount pricing strategy and decrease the diversity of booksellers and that the agency agreements actually helped e-book competition by allowing everyone to compete on an even playing field. US District Judge Denise Cote disagreed:Markets characterized by network externalities tend to tip towards a single, dominant firm, resulting in monopoly. And once a monopolist establishes itself in such a market, such as Microsoft in the computer operating systems market and Apple in the digital music market, the result is inflated prices and retarded innovation. Cote further stated that the settlement agreement was "reasonably calculated to restore retail price competition to the market for trade e-books, to return prices to their competitive level, and to benefit e-books consumers and the public generally" and that antitrust laws were not designed to protect businesses from failure, but rather protect the market from failure..
The DOJ brought the suit in April, and the court denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST reports] by the defendants in May. The DOJ alleged that price fixing conspiracy allegedly employed by Apple and the publishers costs consumers USD $100 million [Bloomberg report] in the preceding two years. Commentators had been very mixed in response to the proposed settlement agreement. Some commentators have suggested that the DOJ's lawsuit is merely "superficial" [JURIST op-ed] and that the effect of the agency agreements may actually have been a net-positive to consumers if Amazon was selling e-books as loss leaders in order to drive the sale of Kindles. Other commentators, however, state that commentators against the settlement agreement and the defendants' arguments are based on a premise that competition is wrong [JURIST op-ed].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN commission presents plan to promote rule of law in Guatemala
Dan Taglioli on September 7, 2012 11:14 AM ET

[JURIST] The head of the UN International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala presented a strategic work plan at the UN headquarters in New York on Thursday outlining efforts in four specific areas to improve the rule of law in the Latin American nation. The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) [official website; press release] has been based in Guatemala City since beginning operations in 2008 with a mandate to bolster the rule of law that permits the CICIG to conduct independent investigations and help authorities bring representative cases to trial in national courts. CICIG Commissioner Francisco Javier Dall'Anese Ruiz presented the new work plan [UN News Centre report] for 2012 to 2013 before representatives of donor countries and other nations interested in contributing to the judicial system in Guatemala. The plan's four targeted areas of improvement include reducing impunity rates, coordinating state efforts to fight criminality, eradicating and preventing the emergence of illegal security forces, and raising awareness of the impact that impunity has on a democratic society. The plan is backed by the Guatemalan authorities and UN member states with interests in supporting the Guatemalan judicial system. CICIG also noted that it has made significant strides in the investigation and criminal prosecution of cases of corruption, money laundering, extra-judicial killings and drug trafficking involving high-ranking government officials, businesspersons and illegal drug traffickers, linking 135 persons to proceedings on different charges.
Guatemala has made progress in recent years toward maintaining the rule of law and erasing impunity for violators. Last week the Embassy of the US Guatemala praised the decision of the Guatemala Constitutional Court [official websites] allowing former president Alfonso Portillo [CIDOB profile, in Spanish] to be extradited to the US, where he would stand trial in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on charges of laundering US$1.5 million [JURIST report] in Taiwanese foreign donations. In November then-president Alvaro Colom announced that he would allow Portillo to be extradited to the US [JURIST report] to stand trial. Colom has also faced recent legal trouble of his own. In August the Guatemalan Constitutional Court ruled that former first lady Sandra Torres was ineligible to run for the office of president [JURIST report] because of her relationship to Colom, her ex-husband. Torres and Colom divorced last year [BBC report] after Torres announced her plans to represent the ruling National Unity for Hope party in upcoming elections. The Guatemalan Constitution [text, PDF] bans relatives of the president from running for the office.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal judge rejects new restrictions on Guantanamo detainees' access to counsel
Dan Taglioli on September 7, 2012 10:22 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Thursday rejected [opinion, PDF] new restrictions on lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] detainees who have had their habeas corpus challenges denied or dismissed. In hearing the challenge to the new rules last month, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth expressed skepticism about the restrictions [JURIST report], which in some cases require a lawyer to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) [memorandum, PDF] to continue to be able to meet with a client, making any meetings or communications with a client "subject to the authority and discretion" of the Guantanamo commanding officer. In his opinion Lamberth framed the argument as "whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners' right to access their counsel"—the challengers contended that the court's 2008 Protective Order [order, PDF] governs access to counsel regardless of whether they are currently petitioning for habeas relief, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] argued that once a habeas petition is terminated the Protective Order expires and the executive has the prerogative of assuring counsel access. Lamberth held that "the Government's attempt to supersede the Court's authority is an illegitimate exercise of Executive power":Unlike the Protective Order, which repeatedly states that the Government may not unreasonably withhold approval of matters within its discretion, the MOU places no such reasonableness requirement on the Commander of JTF-GTMO. ... The MOU also states that both the "operational needs and logistical constraints" at Guantanamo as well as the "requirements for ongoing military commissions, periodic review boards, and habeas litigation" will be prioritized over counsel-access. This provision is particularly troubling as it places a detainee's access to counsel, and thus their constitutional right to access the courts, in a subordinate position to whatever the military commander of Guantanamo sees as a logistical constraint. Lamberth went on to state that, under a "litany" of judicial rulings, the court "has an obligation to assure that those seeking to challenge their Executive detention by petitioning for habeas relief have adequate, effective and meaningful access to the courts ... [which] means nothing without access to counsel." He therefore ruled that the 2008 Protective Order will continue to govern Guantanamo detainees' access to counsel.
Earlier in August the DOJ filed a brief with the court asserting that the government should decide [JURIST report] when a Guantanamo prisoner is granted continued regular access to legal counsel absent a detainee's ongoing habeas or other legal challenge. The challenge to the new restrictions was brought by six Guantanamo detainees, two of whose habeas petitions were denied and four dismissed with the possibility of reconsideration. At the time of the hearing lawyers for only six of the 170 detainees at Guantanamo had signed the MOU. In the 10 years since the first detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay, only a handful have been tried or convicted, and in the past few months there have been several calls by the UN and various foreign governments for some long-held Guantanamo detainees to be returned to their home countries, including Egypt, Canada and Kuwait [JURIST reports].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Chile court sentences Pinochet-era police chief to 15 years in prison for murder
Sarah Posner on September 7, 2012 8:31 AM ET

[JURIST] A Chilean judge sentenced General Manuel Contreras, former chief of police under the reign of Augusto Pinochet [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive], to 15 years in prison on Thursday for murdering an opposition activist. Left-wing activist Ramon Martinez was allegedly tortured and shot [BBC report] while in police custody in 1975. Martinez was a member of the Revolutionary Leftist Movement and was shot on the way to a detention center after he resisted arrest. Contreras was sentenced along with various other police officers who were involved in Martinez's murder, including Brig Miguel Krasnoff Marchenko, Col Marcelo Moren Brito, Col Fernando Lauriani Maturana and Col Mario Jahn Barrera. Each of the officers faces a 15-year sentence, which is to be served in addition to sentences that the officers face for other crimes. Contreras is currently in prison serving various sentences adding up to more than 200 years for convictions of murder and kidnapping.
Chile has been urged to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for the killing and disappearances of individuals during Pinochet's reign. Last month a panel of UN human rights experts urged Chile to make sure that people who have been convicted of enforced disappearances [JURIST report] serve their sentences. In July Chile arrested and charged [JURIST report] two retired air force colonels for their roles in the 1974 death of an air force brigadier general who was also the father of Chile's first female president. In December 2010 a French court convicted [JURIST report] 13 former Chilean officials over the disappearance of four French citizens during Pinochet's regime. The defendants, primarily high-ranking military officers, were tried in absentia, and one defendant was acquitted.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|