aftermath of noel canning

7/24/2019 Aftermath of Noel Canning

1/30

The Aftermath ofNoel CanningWhat Now?

The Legal, Policy, and Practical Considerations of How

Employers ho!ld Proceed "efore the NL#"

April $%, $&'(

Grady B. Murdock Eric L . Barnum Deanna W. Dudley M.Carter DeLorme


2/30

The Noel CanningDecision. Other Pending Cases Raising

the Recess !!ointment"ssue.

#LRB ctions$Decisions"m!licated %y the NoelCanningDecision.

#LRB ctions$Decisions

Potentially "m!licated %y theNoel CanningDecision.

O!tions &or Em!loyers toConsider.

2

genda


3/30

The #LRB 'uorum Re(uirement

The National Labor Relations

Board cannot function without aquorum consisting of at leastthree members.

"n New Process Steel) *+, -.

Ct. +/0 1,*,2) the 3.-.-u!reme Court held that theBoard re(uires a (uorum o& +la4&ully seated mem%ers to

conduct any o5cial %usiness. Because the #LRB at the time

had only t4o mem%ers) theCourt held that its decisionscould not %e en&orced.

3


4/30

Recess!!ointments

6anuary +) ,* 1or earlier27 Mem%er Becker8

recess a!!ointment e9!ires) lea:ing only t4omem%ers) Brian ;ayes and Mark Pearce.

The 3.-. -enate does not go into recess.

"n an e sessions e:ery + days?a tacti

used %y -enate Ma@ority Leader ;arry Reidto %lock President George W. Bush recessa!!ointments.

6anuary A) ,*7 #ot4ithstanding -enatesessions) President O%ama makes recessa!!ointments) announcing three ne4a!!ointees to the #LRB.

-haron Block

Terence lynn

Richard Gri5n

4

NLRB Recess Appointments)

A!g!st $*, $&'') Wilma

Lie+mans term e-pires,

lea.ing the NL#" with only

three mem+ers/

0ne of the three, 1em+er

Craig "ec2er, was gi.en an

intrasession recess

appointment +y President

0+ama in 1arch $&'&/


5/30

The Noel Canning Challenge

#oel Canning Cor!. losesa!!eal %e&ore the #LRBregarding re&usalto%argainallegations.

#oel Canning !etitions &orre:ie4 in the D.C. Circuit)arguing that the #LRB lacks a

(uorum %ecause the 6anuaryA) ,* recess a!!ointments4ere in:alid.

5


6/30

The Recess !!ointmentsClause

The President shall have Power to llu! all "acancies that ma# ha!!en duringthe Recess of the Senate$ b# grantingCommissions which shall e%!ire at the&nd of their ne%t Session.'

(rticle ))$ Section *$ Clause +

6


7/30

Noel Canning T4orguments

*. #arro47 There is no =recess> 4henthe -enate holds sessions e:ery +days.

Pre:iously) no President e:ertried to make recessa!!ointments 4hen -enateholds sessions e:ery + days.

. Broad7 Original meaning o& Recess!!ointments Clause.

=Po4er to ll u! all Facanciesthat mayha!!en during the

Recess o& the -enate.> Limited to :acancies that

arise during recess.

Limited to =the recess)> i.e.)the single %reak at the end o&the year.

7


8/30

The Noel Canning Decision7 D.C.Circuit

Court o& !!ealsado!ts %roadoriginalistunderstanding o& theRecess !!ointmentsClause.

Recess !!ointments

only :alid i& theyoccur7*. During an

=intersession> recess.

. or :acancies thatarise during the8


9/30

The Noel Canning Decision7 E2.

Noel Canningdecision is %indingla4 4ithin D.C. Circuit.

Deadline to le Petition &orRehearing En Banc A0 Days1March **) ,*+2.

Deadline to le Cert. Petition , Days ollo4ing Conclusion o&En Banc cti:ity.

9

Calls into (uestion allactions) includinge9!edited electionrulemaking and cases)decided %y the Board atleast since ugust H),**.

Board orders are not sel&en&orcing.

ny Board order can %ea!!ealed to the D.C.


10/30

Pending Cases Raising the Recess !!ointment "ssue7D.C. Circuit

D.C. Circuit 1* cases27

,- Sands Bethwors /aming v. NLRB) **A,I

*- 0ilum Te%tile Services Co. v. NLRB) **+0)**H0I

+- 0eredith Cor!. v. NLRB) **JHI

1- (erote v. NLRB) **H*I

2- 3imberl# Stewart:. #LRB) **++JI4- 3ec 5os!. of 6SC v. NLRB 7 Sode%o (merica

v. NLRB) **A*+) **A/I

8- 9resenius 6S( 0anufacturing v. NLRB) **+JH) **A*0I

:- 3(/ ;est v. NLRB) **+*I


11/30

Pending Cases Raising the Recess !!ointment "ssue7 OtherCircuits

11

Third Circ!it)NLRB v. New Vista

Nursing, ''3(%%&, '$3'&$* 4 '$3'5(67

NLRB v. New Vista Nursing &

Rehabilitation Center, '$3(8$%7 1621

Route 22 est !perating v. NLRB, '$3

(*69/

:o!rth Circ!it)NLRB v. "nterprise

Leasing Co. #"$ LLC, '$3'8'%7Nestle

%reer's (ce Cream Co. v. NLRB, '$3

'69%7)untington (ngalls (nc. v. NLRB,

'$3$&&&7 Coastal #unbelt *ro+uce v.

NLRB, '$3$$8%/

e.enth Circ!it)Richar+s v. NLRB, '$3

'5*(7,ohn Lugo v. NLRB, '$3'59%7

-# (nt'l *roppants v. NLRB, '$3(($$7

Big Ri+ge v. NLRB, '$3('$&/

Ninth Circ!it)%irecV v. NLRB, '$3

*'$5*, '$3'8'% 4 '$3*$8$6/

Ele.enth Circ!it)NLRB v. /alor+

Chemical Co., '$3'8%&%/


12/30

NLRB Decisions: August 28, 2011 to January 31, 2013

Time Period #LRB Mem%ers Pu%lished 3n!u%lished

J$J$***$+$* P$;$B **, *0+*$$*H$A$* P$;$F/G/B J/ +A

H$0$**$*/$* P$;$G/B *A ,J

*$*H$**$J$* P$G/B *, A

Totals ++, /+H

#LRB Mem%ers

P Mark PearceI -enate Conrmed /$$*,) s4orn in A$H$*,

; Brian ;ayesI -enate Conrmed /$$*,) s4orn in /$$*,Iterm ended *$*/$*

B- Sharon Block; Recess Appointment, sworn in 1/9/12G- Richard Grifn; Recess Appointment, sworn in 1/9/12

F- errence Fl!nn; Recess Appointment, sworn in 1/9/12; resi"ned #/2$/12

B- %rai" Becker; Recess Appointment, sworn in $/&/1'; recess ended1/(/12 with ad)o*rnment o+ 112th%on"ress, 2d Session

12


13/30

NLRB Actions/Decisions Impicate!"y t#eNoel CanningDecision

January $, 2012 to t#e %resent

13


14/30

Decisions &'erruing NLRB %rece!ent

14

"n WCTF) +0 #LRB #o. +, 1Dec. *) ,*2) the Board esche4ed0, years o& !recedent %y o:erruling its decision in Bethlehem -teel)

*+/ #LRB *0,, 1*/2. Board ma@ority held that an em!loyerNs o%ligation to check o test to other industries.

24

"n Entergy Mississi!!i) "nc.) +0H #LRB #o. *HJ 1Dec. +,) ,**2 and DirecTF) +0H#LRB #o. *A 1Dec. ) ,**2) the Board addressed the denition o&=su!er:isor> under the ct.

Both cases held that the em!loyees in (uestion 4ere not su!er:isors.

"n Entergy) the em!loyees 4ere included in the %argaining unit.

"n DirecTF) the em!loyee8s !rounion acti:ity in the !reelection !eriod didnot constitute o%@ectiona%le conduct.


25/30

*ection %roce!ures an! *ection Intererence

"n -isters ood Grou!) "nc.) +0H #LRB #o. */J 1Dec. ) ,**2) the

Board addressed 4hether rerun elections held on an em!loyer8s!remises 4ere im!ro!er. lthough the Board did not announce a!erse rule re(uiring rerun elections to %e held o


26/30

4oing or5ar!67

*.3nder Noel Canning) all Board actions and decisions since ugust H),** are called into (uestion.

The logical im!lication o& the case is that no order issued since that

date can %e en&orced until a (uorum is restored through la4&ula!!ointments.

#LRB announced that the gency 4ill continue to o!erate 4ithrecess a!!ointees Gri5n and Block) and Chairman Pearce.

*.Noel Canning decision is %inding la4 in the D.C. Circuit unless

o:erturned. Board orders are not sel&en&orcing.

ny Board order can %e a!!ealed in the D.C. Circuit.

#LRB can le !etition &or en&orcement in other circuits.

+.ll !etitions &or re:ie4 o& #LRB orders should %e e9!editiously led in

the D.C. Circuit) unless good reason to %ring else4here.

A."n cases !ending in other circuits) 4here the recess a!!ointment issuehas not %een decided) and a case raising such issue is !rocedurally aheado& your case) consider re(uesting that court hold your case in a%eyance)including the %rieng schedule.

26


27/30

A!!itiona ircuit ourt onsi!erations

*. "n any Boardrelated matter !ending in anycircuit court o& a!!eals) consider raising theissue o& the lack o& a Board (uorum.

. "& %rieng has already %een com!leted) ande:en i& oral argument has %een held)consider ling a J1@2 letter arguing thatthe Board order 4as issued 4ithout a!ro!er (uorum.

+. s the D.C. Circuit held in Noel Canning)

!arties should %e a%le to raise this issue incourt e:en i& you did not raise it %e&ore theBoard.

27


28/30

A!ministrati'e %rocee!ings*. "n any matter !ending at the administrati:e le:el)

consider raising the issue o& the lack o& a Board

(uorum7 Petitions

3n&air la%or !ractice charges

Com!laints

-u%!oenas) i& issued %y Block$Gri5n

. "& initial ans4er already led) consider ling anamended or su!!lemental ans4er.

+. On any a!!eal &rom an ad:erse decision o& andministrati:e La4 6udge or Regional Director)

consider raising the issue o& the lack o& a Board(uorum.

A. "& initial %rieng has already %een com!leted)consider raising the matter in a su!!lemental!leading this issue should not %e time%arred)

%ecause it raises a @urisdictional de&ect in the28


29/30

&t#er A!ministrati'e Issues

Consider challenging actions and decisions o&Regional Directors 4ho 4ere a!!ointed %y Boardsthat lacked a !ro!er (uorum 1*J out o& J RegionalDirectors may %e su%@ect to such a challenge2.

Consider challenging delegations %y a Board that

lacked !ro!er (uorum to its cting GeneralCounsel) es!ecially 4ith res!ect to *,1@2 in@unctionmatters.

Consider challenging any ty!e o& Board actiontaken !rior to ugust H) ,** 4here the Board) at

the time such action 4as taken) lacked there(uired (uorum.

29


30/30

Thank you K 'uestions

Grady B. Murdock

Littler Mendelson !ica"o

312#795#3233

"$urdock%littler.co$

&ric L. Barnu$

'c!i(( )ardin *tlanta

404#437#7013e+arnu$%sc!i((!ardin.co$

M. arter ,eLor$e

-ones ,ay # as!in"ton

202#879#4643

cdelor$e%/onesday.co$

,eanna . ,udley

aiser er$anente akland

510 267#4280

,eanna..,udley%k.or"

aftermath of noel canning

Documents