Fourth Circuit Strikes NLRB Poster Rule

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Blog of Legal Times


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled today that the National Labor Relations Board overstepped its authority by issuing a rule that would have required employers to post notices informing workers of their rights under federal labor law.

The court's conclusion is in line with a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in May, which also struck down the rule. However, the Fourth Circuit went further, holding that the NLRB's rulemaking powers are fundamentally limited.

"There is no general grant of power to the NLRB outside the roles of addressing [unfair labor practice] charges and conducting representation elections," wrote Judge Allyson Duncan, who was joined by judges Henry Floyd and Stephanie Thacker. "Indeed, there is no function or responsibility of the Board not predicated upon the filing of an unfair labor practice charge or a representation petition."

The NLRB issued the poster rule on August 30, 2011. It would have required six million employers to post notices “in conspicuous places” detailing workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act, including “the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers.”

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/06/fourth-circuit-strikes-nlrb-poster-rule.html?cid=6a00d83451d94869e20192ab2c9913970d

[hobbit709]

1. Serfs have no rights

[iamthebandfanman]

2. now come on. n/t

[Skeeter Barnes]

3. In other words, we don't want you to know your rights.

The EEOC and OSHA can direct employers to inform employees of their rights concerning equal opportunity and safety but the NLRB can't do the same regarding organizing rights.

[Igel]

4. Perhaps.

But it's nice to think that the Executive branch upholds the Constitution, in which such authority has to be delegated by Congress if it's Congress' to delegate.

"While other federal agencies like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have specific statutory authority to require employers to post notices, the NLRB does not." If so, and there's no place in the law establishing the NRLB to read that authority into the law, that's that.

The NLRB has the Act establishing it and empowering it. It doesn't just have the power that it or labor believes it to need. There has to be some reason in the law to think that it has that power, and judges have to agree with the bureaucrats concerning that reading.

In other words, we don't want administrative portions of the Executive branch to think that because it's not explicitly denied authority it's implicitly been granted that authority. There's a very nice Constitutional process for granting that authority if it's needed.

[Skeeter Barnes]

5. I would think that is part of the Board's purpose.

If employers are violating labor law, why would the board not be able to address that by posting information in the workplace? It says they can address unfair labor practices and that would be one way to do so.

"There is no general grant of power to the NLRB outside the roles of addressing [unfair labor practice] charges and conducting representation elections," wrote Judge Allyson Duncan, who was joined by judges Henry Floyd and Stephanie Thacker. "Indeed, there is no function or responsibility of the Board not predicated upon the filing of an unfair labor practice charge or a representation petition."

edit to add a post from the comments below the article:

A citation would be nice, as I'd like to see how the 4th circuit (and the DC circuit for that matter) decided that 29 USC 156 does not allow the board to decide that informing employees of their right to organize is necessary to secure that right for them in the first place, as guaranteed by s. 157.

[cynzke]

11. Nicely explained.

The court ruled on the technicality of the law as they should. The NLRB was not granted the statutory authority to do this and it was the courts duty to rule so.

[alp227]

6. WTF - TWO Obama-nominated judges (Floyd, Thacker) joined the GW Bush-nominated judge UNANIMOUSLY

in this anti union decision?

[madrchsod]

7. this just makes the union`s work a little harder

but it still law can be printed handed out.

[okaawhatever]

8. Seems like a technical issue. Either the NLRB needs broader powers, or another agency needs to make

the rule. EEOC maybe?

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Drip, drip, drip

go your rights. By judicial fiat.

[fasttense]

10. Unions and worker organizations have to start ignoring the law.

Let's face it, crap like this out of the judiciary only works if you think legal redress will amount to anything. The system is broken and will NOT fix itself.

The system is corrupt and broken. Everyone, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive are corrupted by money. They have been bought off with bribes and rewards. Oh yeah, now and then they seem to hand down something resembling sanity, but mostly it's a smoke screen to keep us workers from hitting the street while they steal everything we have.

What do you think would happen if we workers decided NOT TO WORK? Do you think these great and wonderful CEOs and board of directors could keep running the show?

There is no redress in law. We are no longer ruled by law. We are ruled by the whims of a handful of uber rich men. The only remaining power we the people and workers have is to take to the streets in mass. Face it, everything else has been blocked. We have no other choices.