On February 26, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rescinded its recent 3-2 decision in Hy-Brand Indus. Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), which had restored the traditional standard for determining when multiple entities are joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board’s action stemmed from a determination by the NLRB’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that one of the Board Members who voted in favor of the Hy-Brand decision should not have participated in that decision. The vacatur of the Hy-Brand decision is a setback for the business community. As we previously reported, the Hy-Brand decision overruled the NLRB’s controversial joint employer decision in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) and restored the decades-old standard that required an entity to actually exercise direct and immediate control over another entity’s essential employment conditions and terms to be a joint employer. In Browning-Ferris, the Board decided that two or more entities could be jointly liable under the NLRA if one of the entities merely reserves the right to indirectly control essential employment conditions and terms of another entity. Once again, this funky joint employer standard as set forth in Browning-Ferris is NLRB law. In a memorandum dated February 9, 2018, the Board’s Inspector General, David P....
Tagged: Barack Obama
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump nominated management-side labor attorney, John F. Ring, to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This is a significant nomination because, if Mr. Ring receives Senate approval, the Board will once again be poised to revisit pro-union actions that the NLRB took under the prior administration. This is good news for the business community. Last month, a fully-constituted five member Board took several actions that began a much anticipated releveling of the playing field between Big Labor and Corporate America in the aftermath of profound pro-union actions. Last month’s actions included decisions restoring traditional standards for deciding what constitutes an “appropriate collective bargaining unit” and when two or more entities are “joint employers.” These changes were welcomed by the business community because they provide a more balanced approach to deciding these issues. Shortly after the NLRB’s actions last month, the term of then-Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra expired, leaving one seat at the Board open and the NLRB presumably split two-to-two on a host of additional controversial pro-union actions taken by the Board under the prior administration. (Those actions include the propriety of the NLRB’s “quickie” election rule and a decision giving employees a presumptive right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes.) Two of the current Board Members, Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren...
December 2017 has been one for the labor law community to remember. We have seen a wintry flurry of actions by the newly-constituted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has begun a much anticipated releveling of the playing field between Big Labor and Corporate America in the aftermath of profound pro-union actions under the prior administration. On the heels of an instructive and potentially predictive memorandum issued by the Board’s new General Counsel, the NLRB raised questions about the 2014 “quickie” election rule and issued a number of decisions setting forth more neutral standards for analyzing significant legal issues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including: an administrative law judge’s ability to accept a charged party’s proposed settlement terms; when multiple employers should be deemed “joint employers” under the NLRA; an employer’s ability to take unilateral action consistent with its past practices; the legality of workplace rules that do not expressly prohibit concerted activities protected by the NLRA; and appropriate collective bargaining units. New NLRB General Counsel’s First Memorandum On December 1, 2017, the NLRB’s new General Counsel, Peter B. Robb, issued a memorandum leaving little doubt that he has a very different view of the NLRA than his predecessor on several key issues. In the memorandum, the General Counsel—who is responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair labor...
On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board announced that the Senate has filled all five of its Board Member seats for the first time since August 21, 2003. Moving forward, this ends the debate as to whether the Board has the constitutional authority to take action, such as issuing decisions, so long as three of these Senate-confirmed members are present when the Board takes action.
As predicted, the Supreme Court of the United States announced today that it will address the constitutionality of President Obama’s purported “recess” appointments of Members to the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court’s decision, which could invalidate hundreds of Board decisions made during the past two years, is expected by July 2014.
On May 16, 2013, in NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit in holding that the Recess Appointment Clause of the Constitution allows the President to make “recess appointments” (that is, without the advice and consent of the Senate) only when the Senate is on a formal intersession recess, as opposed to an intra-session break. Both the Third Circuit’s decision and the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Canning v. NLRB (as elaborated upon in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. NLRB) arise from actions taken by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) some of whose members had been appointed during an intra-session break. To summarize: (1) at least three Board members must participate in a Board decision; (2) according to these courts, the Board has not had three validly-appointed Members since August 27, 2011; and (3) although the NLRB has had four sitting Members between April 5, 2010 and August 27, 2011, it has issued some three-Member decisions during this time wherein one decision-maker, Craig Becker, was arguably unconstitutionally-appointed, rendering those decisions invalid. Potentially hundreds of decisions by the Board over the past three years are at risk of being declared invalid.
On May 7, 2013, in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. NLRB, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that a rule implemented by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) requiring most private sector employers to post a notice about workers’ rights to unionize was invalid. As previously reported, the Board issued the rule almost two years ago, and has repeatedly postponed its effective date pending the outcome of legal challenges to the rule by business groups.
Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) announced it will petition the United States Supreme Court to review Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013). As previously reported, in Canning the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that three appointments of officers to the NLRB by President Obama were unconstitutional because they lacked the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate and were not authorized by the Constitution’s so-called Recess Appointments Clause.
In a groundbreaking opinion, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled that three appointments of officers to the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) by President Barrack Obama were unconstitutional because they lacked the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate and were not authorized by the Constitution’s so-called Recess Appointments Clause. As a result, the Court vacated the underlying Board decision that gave rise to the appeal, concluding that the NLRB had no authority to issue the decision because only two of its five members were validly appointed. Thus the Board lacked the quorum necessary for it to take action. The ruling has widespread implications for the NLRB as well as the President’s overall “recess appointment” powers.