Skip to main content

One to Keep an Eye On: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, United States Supreme Court


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  As of August 2010, the National Labor Relations Board had five members, the maximum number allowed.  On August 27, 2010, one of the five year terms of a Board member expired and President Obama submitted a nomination to the Senate to fill that spot.  A year later, on August 27, 2011, another Board member's term expired, leaving the NLRB with only three members, the minimum needed for a quorum.  President Obama submitted a nomination for that spot.  One of the three remaining members of the Board,Craig Becker, had been appointed during a recess of the Senate in 2010. Because the Recess Appointments Clause provides that the term of a recess appointee "shall expire at the End of [the Senate's] next Session," and Becker's recess appointment had been made during the second session of the 111th Congress, it was understood that his commission would expire at the end of the first session of the 112th Congress.  The first session of the 112th Congress ended at noon on January 3, 2012, when the second session began by operation of the Twentieth Amendment.  At that time, Becker's seat became vacant and the Board ceased to have a quorum because the Senate had not acted on any of the nominations to the three Board spots.  

The Senate had provided that it would reconvene for pro forma sessions three times between December 17 and the end of the session on January 3.  As well, the Senate provided it would reconvene for pro forma sessions on five specified dates between January 6 and January 20 and that from January 3 through January 23, 2012, "no business was to be conducted."  The Senate was to resume business on January 23.  In an order, the Senate referred to its impending absence as a "recess."  As a result of the Senate's actions at this time, President Obama determined the Senate was in recess and on January 4, 2012, appointed three new Board members to fill the open spots. The present case involves a final order issued by the Board shortly after President Obama made the January 2012 recess appointments. 

The Main Issues:  (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a  Senate session, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. 

Lower Court Opinion:  http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf 

Current Status:  On January 13, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more