File Photo Courtesy of W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justices Evan Jenkins, left, and Tim Armstead hear arguments during the first day of the court’s spring 2021 term.

CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction Monday blocking a bill prohibiting union dues from automatically being taken from paychecks.

In a 3-2 decision released Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a preliminary injunction issued in June by Kanawha County Circuit Judge Tera Salango blocking enforcement of House Bill 2009, the Paycheck Protection Act, be dissolved and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings.

HB 2009 prohibits employers and payroll agents from withholding a portion of an employee’s wages and salaries for political activities on behalf of a union or any other private organization without express written authorization by the employee. The bill also prohibits state, municipal, and county governments from withholding union or club dues from a public employee’s wages or salaries.

Justice Beth Walker wrote the opinion on behalf of Chief Justice Evan Jenkins and Justice Tim Armstead. In the opinion, Walker said Salango “abused her discretion” when granting the preliminary injunction June 16 on behalf of the West Virginia AFL-CIO and a dozen other labor unions.

“A preliminary injunction is a powerful remedy that should be issued only after a court has carefully considered the parties’ arguments, evidence and relevant authorities,” Walker wrote. “Our review of the circuit court’s order preliminarily enjoining the new law from taking effect reveals that it is a product of less than careful consideration.”

Walker said Salango should not have granted a preliminary injunction because the unions were unable to show how they would be irreparably harmed by having to switch from automated deduction of dues by government entities from paychecks to other third-party systems, such as payment systems commonly used by customers to subscribe to video streaming services.

“Respondents claim that HB 2009 violates certain constitutional rights. But Respondents have not directed the Court to any relevant authority supportive of their claim that HB 2009 violates their speech, associational and equal protection rights,” Walker wrote. “And, Respondents have not made a clear showing of the foundation of their contract clause claim.”

“The circumstances of this case… called for the circuit court to deny injunctive relief to Respondents,” Walker continued. “The court abused its discretion when it did not.”

Justice John Hutchison penned a dissent to the majority’s decision on behalf of himself and Justice William Wooten. Hutchison said the circuit court’s preliminary injunction only maintained the “status quo,” allowing dues to be deducted as normal until the lower court made a ruling in the case.

“I must respectfully dissent to the majority opinion, which holds that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction — an injunction that did no more than maintain a status quo ante that has existed for more than half a century, in order to give the parties an opportunity to marshal all of their evidence and fully brief their respective legal positions,” Hutchison wrote.