Skip to main content

Ninth Circuit Holds President Biden Had Authority to Terminate NLRB’s General Counsel


Last Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that President Biden had the authority to remove the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), despite claims to the contrary. 

Readers will likely recall that when President Biden came into office back in January 2021, he took swift steps to remove the NLRB’s general counsel (Peter Robb) on his first day in the Oval Office and insert his own general counsel (Jennifer Abruzzo) who was later confirmed by the Senate in July of 2021.  Critics of the move immediately called President Biden’s move unlawful and without any legal authority, not to mention the fact this was the first time a president and removed the NLRB’s general counsel.

Unsurprisingly, lawsuits began over the matter in both the Fifth and Ninth Circuits on the grounds that the termination was unlawful and any subsequent rulings from the NLRB were invalid.  Last April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that President Biden lawfully terminated the NLRB’s’s general counsel (and therefore any subsequent rulings from the NLRB’s were valid.)  

As noted above, last Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed suit and issued a similar ruling.  In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) allowed the removal of board members “for neglect of south or malfeasance in office.”  Notably, a board member cannot  be removed simply because a president desires it.  However, the NLRA does not provide similar protections for the NLRB’s general counsel.  As a result, the Ninth Circuit held the President Biden could lawfully remove President Trump appointed Peter Robb, and therefore any subsequent  rulings from the NLRB were valid.


For additional information:  https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/01/27/22-70002.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