Skip to main content

Updated: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, United States Supreme Court


Earlier this year, I had highlighted the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning as one of the premier labor cases before the US Supreme Court to keep an eye on (National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning - Blog).  For those readers needing a bit of a refresher, President Obama had appointed three members to three open board spots at the NLRB when the President declared the Senate was in recess and he was therefore exercising his recess-appointment power to fill the vacancies.  In essence, there were three main issues in the case:

  • (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. 

The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision on the case and, by unanimous decision, held that the US Senate was not in recess when President Obama made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and therefore all NLRB decisions and actions from August 27, 2011 through July 17, 2013 were not valid.  This was a somewhat surprising unanimous decision, given that there are several liberal leaning justices on the Supreme Court that agreed that the recess appointments were invalid.  The Supreme Court's ruling upheld the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which found that the panel of the NLRB that had decided an unfair labor practice case against Noel Canning (a Pepsi bottler), was unconstitutionally constituted and therefore the NLRB's decision was invalid.  

Now, the question becomes what will happen to all the NLRB decisions and actions which are now in doubt.  In all likelihood, given the political leaning of the NLRB at this time, I would expect a majority of those decisions and actions to be held to be valid.  There is a chance that some of the smaller unreported cases will be held to be invalid (as those are often less publicized and sometimes present less precedential or pressing labor issues). 

A copy of the Supreme Court's opinion can be found here:  http://www.managementmemo.com/files/2014/06/12-1281_bodg.pdf

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more