Right-to-work proposal defeated in Sussex County

A proposed right-to-work ordinance was defeated by Sussex County Council on Tuesday.

Councilman Rob Arlett, who introduced the ordinance in October, was the only member of council who voted in favor of the measure, which was defeated by a 4-1 vote.

"If it has the ability to attract jobs to this county, then we should consider it and let the courts make their decision as they see fit," Arlett said.

Legal hurdles – and the costs associated with court battles – were the deciding factor that led to the demise of the proposed legislation, which would have exempted Sussex County from a longstanding state law that allows private businesses to require employees to either join or pay fees to a union.

“The bottom line is if we adopt this, we will be in litigation,” Councilman I.G. Burton said. “It is my sworn obligation to look after taxpayer dollars and how they will be spent. I do not believe most taxpayers approve of their money going toward fighting an unavoidable lawsuit.”

Burton, who cast the first vote against the ordinance, said he is ready to work with members of the General Assembly to pursue state-level right-to-work initiatives.

He said he’d rather focus on other ways to attract more jobs to southern Delaware, such as improving infrastructure and transportation.

“I would rather focus on these things I know we can do,” he said.

RELATED:Sussex right-to-work hearing draws crowd, reignites animosity

Initially, Arlett wanted to defer a vote on the ordinance to allow for more time to digest a lengthy summary of County Attorney J. Everett Moore’s 11-page legal opinion on the matter.

“I think it would make sense to defer this for further review,” Arlett said, prompting a disapproving outburst from the audience. His motion died for a lack of support.

Before council defeated the measure, Moore outlined the legal reasons why, if adopted, the legislation would likely fail in a courtroom and possibly cost the county millions of dollars in legal fees.

“Just because some other county has [adopted right-to-work] that does not give Sussex County the automatic right to do that,” Moore said.

Proponents of the ordinance repeatedly cited a county-level right-to-work ordinance passed in Warren County, Kentucky, in 2014. Other Kentucky counties then followed suit, leading labor unions to file a federal lawsuit. A U.S. District Court judge struck down those local laws, but his ruling later was overturned by three judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I remain committed that we have a problem with our home rule statute,” Moore said, referring to a state law that gives Sussex County the power to pass legislation. However, the home rule statute specifically excludes “the power to enact private or civil law concerning civil relationships,” referred to as the private rule exception.

The proposed right-to-work ordinance would regulate private contracts between employees, employers and unions – namely by prohibiting the requirement that someone join a union or pay fees in lieu of union membership as a condition of employment.

Moore said the county lacks the power to create such a law under the private rule exception in Delaware’s home rule statute.

The Delaware Attorney General’s Office also has warned that the county lacks the legal authority to enact the proposal.

Adopting the ordinance also would lead to amending the county’s budget to pay for the implementation and enforcement of right-to-work rules, Moore said.

“I am sad that we’ve already spent tens of thousands of dollars on research and legal fees on something we were told months ago we could not do,” Council President Michael Vincent said. “I am very concerned with losing our insurance coverage, which would affect the taxpayers a great deal. Our job is to watch your tax dollars like I would watch my own.”

Vincent also said not one person or business has told officials they would relocate to Sussex County if the ordinance passed.

To date, 28 states have passed statutes that give workers the right to decide whether to join or financially support a union. A quarter of those states have added right-to-work laws in the past 20 years.

Outside council chambers, inflatable rats and an inflatable “fat cat” draped with a photo of Arlett once again lined The Circle and East Market Street in protest of the proposed ordinance. Along the snowy streets of downtown Georgetown, union members and officials opposing the proposed ordinance were hesitant to rejoice in council’s decision.

“It’s never going to end,” said Rick Fridell, business representative for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 126. “I hate to say it’s a union-killing bill because it hurts all working people because if unions don’t represent working people, who’s going to do it?”

Fridell said a right-to-work ordinance could break the unions and would hurt thousands of Sussex County workers and residents represented by the IBEW.

“Nobody ever said they were going to come here with their business or relocate here,” Fridell said. “It’s such a shame that so much energy and money had to be wasted on something like this, to try to hurt Sussex County workers.” 

Contact reporter Maddy Lauria at (302) 345-0608, mlauria@delawareonline.com or on Twitter @MaddyinMilford.