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, 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