Tag: NLRB

NLRB Says There Is Such Thing as a Free Lunch

Barnes Thornburg
This week, the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB) attempted to disprove the old adage that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. In Gates & Sons Barbeque of Missouri, Inc., decided on September 16, 2014, the three-member panel of the NLRB unanimously affirmed most of the decision reached by an administrative law judge (the ALJ) that a Kansas City barbecue restaurant chain violated employee rights by taking away the meal benefits previously afforded to its employees.

Checkered Tablecloth with Fork and Knife

The free lunch at issue in this case consisted of a meat sandwich and a side provided to each employee during each shift that he or she worked, a $6 to $10 value. This lunch benefit was provided to employees at the Main Stree location (the only location, out of eight total locations, at issue) from at least 2011 until the end of July 2013.  Other benefits received by employees during this time included the right to make purchases on a “tab,” to be deducted from future paychecks, and qualification for monthly bonuses tied to the location’s performance.

In July 2013, some of the employees of the Main Street location took part in a campaign, organized by the Workers’ Organizing Committee of Kansas City (the WOC), to obtain higher wages for food workers. Prior to the planned 1-day strike organized by the WOC, the Main Street location manager met with a group of employees that had previously met with a WOC organizer and made various threats intended to stop them from striking. In spite of the threats, nine out of the thirty Main Street employees participated in the 1-day strike. The workers that struck were all allowed to return to work, but the Main Street location supervisors announced the following week, via posted notices and word of mouth, that they were discontinuing certain employee benefits, incluing the free employee meals and the right to buy food on a tab.

Despite the testimony of one of the Main Street location’s supervisors that the free lunch was taken away from the workers because of customer complaints and poor performance, the ALJ found that the taking away of the free lunch and other benefits was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it was in retaliation for the employees’ participation in the 1-day strike. Gates & Sons was ordered to make their employees whole for the lost meal benefit.

ARTICLE BY

Steve L. Hernández
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Micro Bargaining Units Coming To a Workplace Near You

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

It is no secret that many employers take steps to try and keep their workplaces union-free.  One of the newer concerns for employers in that camp is the possibility that employees could form a “micro bargaining unit,” which is a unit of employees that make up only a small portion of the workforce. 

Act Now! to Preserve Your Collective Bargaining Rights!

In a 2011 case, Specialty Healthcare, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) established a new standard for determining appropriate bargaining units.  Specifically, the Board stated that, in evaluating a potential unit, it would focus on the community of interest among the petitioning employees.  According to the Board in that case, factors such as the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, and geographic considerations should all be taken into account when evaluating a proposed unit.

Specialty Healthcare also placed a significant burden on employers trying to challenge smaller units.  The Board stated that, if an employer wished to argue that a unit should include additional employees, the employer needs to show that employees in a larger unit have an “overwhelming” community of interest with those in the proposed smaller unit.  That’s a higher burden than what has been applicable in the past, and not one easy to meet.

The effects of Specialty Healthcare were evident in a more recent Board decision.  In Macy’s Inc., the Board recently confirmed that 41 Macy’s cosmetic and fragrance department sales employees could form a bargaining unit.  Those 41 employees made up about one-third of the employees at that Macy’s store.  Macy’s argued that this unit was inappropriate because cosmetic and fragrance employees shared an overwhelming community of interest with the other sales employees, but the Board saw it differently.

The Board noted several factors that established the community of interest among the cosmetic and fragrance employees: they all worked in the same department, were supervised by the same manager, had limited contact with other sales employees, and were paid on the same commission-based based structure.  Additionally, the Board pointed out that Macy’s rarely transferred employees between the cosmetic and fragrance department and other store departments.

While the Macy’s, Inc. case was not a positive development for employers, the NLRB then rejected a proposed micro-unit about a week later in a different case at Bergdorf-Goodman, a Nieman Marcus subsidiary.  In that case, the Board found that salon shoes salespeople and contemporary shoe salespeople lacked a community of interest.  In so deciding, the Board noted that the proposed unit in that case was not created based on any administrative or operational lines established by the employer.  Additionally, the employees had different department managers, different floor managers, and different directors of sales.

While both of these cases dealt with the retail industry, the results are important to employers in any sector, since the Specialty Healthcare standard certainly can be applied to create micro-bargaining units in other industries.  In fact, employers can probably expect unions to try organizing smaller bargaining units within larger companies, particularly where efforts to organize larger groups have proved unsuccessful.  This strategy allows unions to select pro-union employee groups and increase their likelihood of winning an election.

If there’s one proactive takeaway from these cases, it’s that employers need to think in advance about how they can make themselves less vulnerable to micro-unit organizing.  For example, cross-training employees and having them work in different departments makes it less likely a union could demonstrate a community of interest among a small group of employees.  Of course, any steps taken to combat against micro-unit organizing also need to be evaluated for their operational feasibility.  In most cases, it’s probably best that employers contact experienced legal counsel to weigh the pros and cons involved.

Firings for Facebook Comments Unlawful, NLRB Rules

Jackson Lewis Law firm

An employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two employees because of their participation in a Facebook discussion about their employer’s State income tax withholding mistakes, by threatening employees with discharge for their Facebook activity, by questioning employees about that activity, and by informing employees they were being discharged because of their Facebook activity, the NLRB has ruled. The Board also ruled the employer’s Internet/Blogging policy violated the NLRA. Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014).

Facebook Posts

Triple Play employees Jillian Sanzone and Victor Spinella discovered they owed more in State income taxes on their earnings at the sports bar than expected. Sanzone discussed this at work with other employees, and some employees complained to the employer about the tax problem. The employees did not belong to a union. 

Sanzone, Spinella, and former employee Jamie LaFrance had Facebook accounts. On January 31, 2011, LaFrance posted the following “status update” to her Facebook page:

Maybe someone should do the owners of Triple Play a favor and buy it from them. They can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money…[expletive deleted]!!!!

The following comments were posted to LaFrance’s page in response:

KEN DESANTIS (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and a customer): “You owe them money…that’s [expletive deleted] up.”

DANIELLE MARIE PARENT (Triple Play employee): “I [expletive deleted] OWE MONEY TOO!”

LAFRANCE: “The state. Not Triple Play. I would never give that place a penny of my money. Ralph [DelBuono] [expletive deleted] up the paperwork…as per usual.”

DESANTIS: “yeah I really dont go to that place anymore.”

LAFRANCE: “It’s all Ralph’s fault. He didn’t do the paperwork right. I’m calling the labor board to look into it bc he still owes me about 2000 in paychecks.”

At this point, Spinella selected the “Like” option under LaFrance’s initial status update. The discussion continued:

LAFRANCE: “We shouldn’t have to pay it. It’s every employee there that its happening to.”

DESANTIS: “you better get that money…thats [expletive deleted] if that is the case im sure he did it to other people too.” 

PARENT: “Let me know what the board say because I owe $323 and ive never owed.”

LAFRANCE: “I’m already getting my 2000 after writing to the labor board and them investigating but now I find out he [expletive deleted] up my taxes and I owe the state a bunch. Grrr.”

PARENT: “I mentioned it to him and he said that we should want to owe.”

LAFRANCE: “Hahahaha he’s such a shady little man. He prolly pocketed it all from all our paychecks. I’ve never owed a penny in my life till I worked for him. Thank goodness I got outta there.”

SANZONE: “I owe too. Such an [expletive deleted].”

PARENT: “yeah me neither, i told him we will be discussing it at the meeting.”

SARAH BAUMBACH (Triple Play employee): “I have never had to owe money at any jobs…i hope i wont have to at TP…probably will have to seeing as everyone else does!”

LAFRANCE: “Well discuss good bc I won’t be there to hear it. And let me know what his excuse is ;).”

JONATHAN FEELEY (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and customer): “And ther way to expensive.” 

Sanzone and Spinella Discharged

When Ralph DelBuono, the employer’s co-owner, learned about the Facebook discussion, he discharged Sanzone, telling her it was because of her Facebook comment. Spinella was terminated the next day, after being interrogated about the Facebook discussion, the meaning of his “Like” selection, the identity of the others in the conversation, and other issues. The other co-owner told Spinella that, because Spinella “liked” the disparaging and derogatory comments, Spinella was disloyal and it was “apparent” that Spinella wanted to work elsewhere. He told Spinella, “[Y]ou will be hearing from our lawyers.” Thereafter, the company’s attorney contacted Sanzone by letter, suggesting a possible defamation action. The lawyer also contacted LaFrance who, in response, deleted the entire Facebook conversation and posted a retraction. 

Sanzone and Spinella filed separate unfair labor practice charges against Triple Play, which the NLRB consolidated into one complaint. 

The employer did not dispute the employees’ Facebook activity was concerted and they had a protected right to engage in a Facebook discussion about the employer’s tax withholding calculations. The employer, however, contended it had not violated the NLRA because the plaintiffs had adopted LaFrance’s allegedly defamatory and disparaging comments, which were unprotected. The employer also asserted the Facebook posts were unprotected because they were made in a “public” forum, accessible to employees and customers, and they had undermined the co-owner’s authority in the workplace and adversely affected its public image.

Comments Protected

The Board disagreed. It determined the employees did not lose the Act’s protection to engage in concerted activity because of their comments in the Facebook discussion. Under its holding in Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), the NLRB explained, it must balance employee rights with the employer’s interest in maintaining order at its workplace, but Atlantic Steel dealt with workplace confrontations with the employer, which was not the scenario here. The employer’s reliance on that decision was therefore misplaced. In this case, the Board pointed out, the disputed conduct involved a social media discussion among offsite, off-dutyemployees, and two non-employees in which no manager or supervisor participated and where there was no direct confrontation with management. Further, the Board said, Sanzone’s “use of a single expletive” to describe her manager “in the course of a protected discussion on a social media website” did not “sufficiently implicate” the employer’s “legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order in the workplace.”

The Board also rejected the employer’s argument that Sanzone’s comment was unprotected because it was a workplace confrontation that could be seen by customers DeSantis and Feeley. The NLRB noted they joined the discussion as LaFrance’s Facebook friends, on their own initiative and in the context of a social relationship with LaFrance outside of the workplace, not because they were the employer’s customers, and“[t]his off-duty indiscretion away from the [employer’s] premises did not disrupt any customer’s visit to the [employer].”

Neither did the Board see this conduct as disloyal or defamatory. While the Board agreed an employer has a legitimate interest in preventing the disparagement of its products or services and in protecting its reputation from defamation, against which NLRA Section 7 rights are to be balanced, that interest was not pr
esent here so as to overcome the employees’ statutory protection. It rejected the employer’s contention that Sanzone’s comment and Spinella’s “like” were disloyal and unprotected. The purpose of the employees’ communications was to seek and provide mutual support to encourage the employer to address problems in the terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or to undermine its reputation, the NLRB said. The discussion clearly showed a labor dispute existed and the employees’ participation was not directed to the general public (they were more comparable to conversations that can be overheard by a customer). Further, the Board said the comments were not “so disloyal . . . as to lose the Act’s protection” because they did not even mention the employer’s products.

The Board also rejected the contention that the employees’ comments were unprotected because they were defamatory. According to the agency, Triple Play had not met its burden to establish the comments were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In addition, it said that Sanzone’s use of an expletive to describe a co-owner in connection with the asserted tax-withholding errors “cannot reasonably be read as a statement of fact; rather, Sanzone was merely (profanely) voicing a negative personal opinion of [the co-owner].”

“Like” Protected

The Board also decided that Spinella’s use of Facebook’s “like” option was protected. It expressed agreement only with the comment it immediately followed (LaFrance’s original post), the Board found, not with LaFrance’s other comments. Accordingly, said the Board, Spinella’s activity was protected by the Act, and the employer’s adverse action was unlawful. (See our blog post, Employee’s Facebook ‘Like’ is Part of Concerted Activity: NLRB.)

Internet/Blogging Policy Unlawful

The Board faulted the employer’s internet/blogging policy, as well. It found that, since employees would reasonably construe the employer’s “Internet/Blogging” policy to prohibit the type of protected Facebook post that led to the unlawful discharges, it was illegal.

The policy stated:

The Company supports the free exchange of information and supports camaraderie among its employees. However, when internet blogging, chat room discussions, email, text message, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the company, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Please keep in mind that if you communicate regarding any aspect of the Company, you must include a disclaimer that the views you share are yours, and not necessarily the views of the Company. In the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect.

Employees could reasonably interpret the policy as proscribing discussions about terms and conditions deemed “inappropriate” by the employer, because “‘inappropriate’ [is] ‘sufficiently imprecise’ that employees would reasonably understand it to encompass ‘discussions and interactions protected by Section 7,’” the Board found.

Employer Cautions

This decision is wide-ranging. It underscores the need for employers to pause, reflect, and thoroughly investigate before taking action against employees for alleged misconduct where they have acted together in regard to their wages, hours or working conditions, even where their language might give offense to the employer despite the fact that members of the public can view their complaints. The decision also shows the NLRB affords significant leeway to employees, even permitting public invective against business owners — at least up to a point. Finally, employers should avoid policies and rules that contain broad, imprecise, or vague prohibitions that might be viewed as restricting unlawfully employees’ protected activity. 

ARTICLE BY

Howard M. Bloom
Philip B. Rosen
 
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model (Part II)

 

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Yesterday’s post discussed the decision of NLRB’s General Counsel to hold McDonald’s Corp. jointly responsible with its franchise owners for workers’ labor complaints. The decision, if allowed to stand, could shake up the decades-old fast-food franchise system, but it does not stop there. The joint employer doctrine can be applied not only to fast food franchises and franchise arrangements in other industries, but also to other employment arrangements, such as subcontracting or outsourcing.

This decision could also impact the pricing of goods and services, as franchisors would likely need to up costs to offset the new potential liability. Everything from taxes to Affordable Care Act requirements could be affected if the decision stands.

If you are a franchisor and are currently in what could be determined to be a joint employer relationship, consider taking steps to further separate and distinguish your role from that of your franchisee. While franchisors should always take reasonable measures to ensure that franchisees are in compliance with applicable federal and state employment laws, they should take care to not wield such force over them to give the appearance of a joint-employer relationship.

We will be following the NLRB decision and keep you updated as the issue progresses.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Asserting Franchisor Can Be Jointly Liable With Its Franchisees

Schiff Hardin Law Firm

Earlier this week, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard F. Griffin, authorized the issuance of multiple complaints which include allegations that a franchisor, McDonald’s, USA, LLC, could be liable as ajoint employer with its franchisees for violations of theNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The text of the General Counsel’s authorization is available here.

Since 2012, McDonald’s, USA, LLC and its franchisees have been named in 181 unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB. In a memorandum issued to the Regional Directors, the General Counsel noted that 43 of those charges were found to have merit, while the remaining charges either were found to have no merit or are pending further investigation. The General Counsel’s action authorizes the regions in which the charges were filed to issue administrative complaints naming McDonald’s USA, LLC and its franchisees as respondents if the parties are unable to reach settlement in the 43 cases that have been found to have merit.

The authorization comes on the heels of an amicus brief filed by the General Counsel in June in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., urging the Board to adopt a new standard for determining joint-employer status. Under the current standard, the NLRB analyzes whether alleged joint employers share the ability to control or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984). Essential terms and conditions of employment include hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction of employees. Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). The putative joint employers’ control over these employment matters must be direct and immediate.

In the amicus brief, the General Counsel argued that the Board’s current standard for determining joint-employer status is significantly narrower than the traditional standard and ignores Congress’s intent that the term “employer” be construed broadly. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard that accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including how putative joint employers structure their commercial dealings. Under the proposed test, joint-employer status would exist if one of the entities wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence.

The NLRB has not yet decided whether to adopt the General Counsel’s proposed standard, and the Browning-Ferris case is currently pending before the Board.

Implications and Recommendations

Although the General Counsel’s action has sparked a flurry of debate over the proper test for determining joint-employer status, it remains unclear whether the NLRB will accept his position. If the NLRB decides to adopt a new joint-employer standard, it would likely expand the number of entities found to be joint employers and thus potentially liable for alleged unfair labor practices, and could have ramifications under other employment laws as well, including wage and hour and discrimination cases.

ARTICLE BY

Alexis Dominguez
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

Employee Codes of Conduct: Really? Requiring Someone To Use Information “Fairly And Lawfully” Can Be Illegal?

Allen Matkins Law Firm

Companies have lots of very good reasons for adopting codes of conduct.  These reasons include:

  • Ensuring compliance with applicable exchange listing rules (e.g., NYSE Rule 303A.10 and NASDAQ Rule 5610);
  • Minimizing the risk of securities law violations (e.g., Regulation FD and Rule 10b-5);
  • Protecting company assets (trade secrets as well as reputational assets);
  • Complying with contractual obligations requiring confidentiality; and
  • Complying with customer and employee privacy laws and regulations.

Thus, I was amazed to see a recent decision by a panel of the National Labor Relations Board finding the following language in a code of conduct to be unlawful:

Keep customer and employee information secure.  Information must be used fairly, lawfully and only for the purpose for which it was obtained.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market and United Food & Commercial Works Int’l Union, Cases 31-CA-077074 and 31-CA-080734 (July 31, 2014).   The NLRB found that this language violated employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.  Reversing the administrative law judge, the panel found that employees would reasonably construe the above language “to prohibit discussion and disclosure of information about other employees, such as wages and terms and conditions of employment”.  Really?  This admonition was included at page 16 of a 20 page booklet primarily dedicated to a variety of ethical matters.  In my view, it is arbitrary and capricious, if not just plain bizarre, to interpret this language as conveying any limitation on employees’ Section 7 rights.

ARTICLE BY

Keith Paul Bishop
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

College Football Players As Employees ? – Illegal Formation!

Godfrey Kahn Law Firm

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee filed an amicus brief on July 10 that opposed unionization of college athletes. A case involving athletes at Northwestern University is pending before the National Labor Relations Board. Northwestern University and College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), Case No. 13-RC-121359

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and fellow committee members Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) along with members of several House Committees signed the amicus brief in support of Northwestern University in the case. The brief stated:

“Congress never intended for college athletes to be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and doing so is incompatible with the student-university relationship,” the senators said. “The profound and inherent differences between the student-university and employee-employer relationship makes employee status unworkable both as a matter of law and in practice.”

The complete brief can be found here.

The American Council on Education also filed an amicus brief on July 3. That brief can be found here.

Article By:

Jon E. Anderson
Of:
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds D.C. Circuit Decision in Noel Canning

Jackson Lewis Logo

In a lengthy opinion authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, and drawing heavily on historical practice of Presidents and the Senate, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Noel Canning v. NLRB, concluding that President Obama’s three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 (Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn) were invalid. The Court upheld the right of the President to make recess appointments both inter- and intra-session, but held that it is the Senate that decides when it is in session by retaining the power to conduct business pursuant to its own rules. The Court also found that a recess of less than ten days “is presumptively too short” to permit the President to make a recess appointment, except in “unusual circumstances”, such as a “national catastrophe”. (The recess here was three days.) The Court also decided that the recess appointment power applies to appointments that first come into existence during a recess and to those that initially occur before a recess but continue to exist during a recess.

As a result of the decision, over 1,000 Board decisions likely are now invalid. According to the National Right to Work Foundation, 999 unpublished decisions and 719 published decisions (totaling 1,718) could be affected. The Chamber of Commerce estimates 1,302 decisions from August 27, 2011 through July 17, 2013 to be suspect.

Article By:

Howard M. Bloom
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C