Skip to main content

NLRB Declines to Wade Into Whether General Counsel’s Appointment Was Lawful

 

On April 21st, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a short Order in which it declined to weigh into whether President Joe Biden’s nomination of Peter Ohr to serve as the NLRB’s General Counsel was lawful.  (At the present time, Ohr is serving as acting General Counsel.)

Readers will recall that President Biden’s abrupt termination of the prior General Counsel, Peter Robb, was met with much “fanfare” on both sides.  Labor advocates cheered the decision as President Biden sought to flex his muscle and reshape the NLRB into a more labor friendly iteration after he took office in January.  On the other hand, employer side advocates were quick to to criticize President Biden for taking the unusual step to terminate Robb when Robb still had several months left of his four year tenure.

While the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) sets out how a President can remove Board members, it is silent as to whether a President can remove the General Counsel.  (As readers might imagine, both sides sought to portray the NLRA’s silence on the matter to bolster their argument.)  After legal challenges were launched following Robb’s termination and Ohr’s appointment, the NLRB had a chance to weigh in on the case of National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians.  (In that matter, the charging party challenged the validity of Robb’s removal and the subsequent appointment of Ohr.)

As some might have expected, the NLRB chose to not make a ruling on the matter and instead indicated it was a situation reserved for the federal courts to resolve.  The NLRB’s ruling is appealable to federal courts although whether that happens is uncertain.  For the time being, this story continues to evolve, much to the chagrin of President Biden and labor advocates.


For additional information:  https://aboutblaw.com/Xd6

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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more