Appellate Court Issues Injunction Against NLRB Poster Requirement

17 April 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman

On March 5, 2012, we blogged about the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling that the NLRB properly promulgated a requirement that employers post a notice informing emploeyes of their rights under the NLRA.  Under the rule, employers were required to post the notice by April 30, 2012.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Appeals issued an injunction blocking the rule from taking effect on April 30, 2012.  The Court of Appeals has established an expedited briefing schedule for the case.  Oral argument is set for September 2012.  The issue before the Court of Appeals is whether the NLRB lacked authority to implement the rule.

This injunction was issued only four days after the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina struck down the NLRB rule requiring employers to post the notice.  Chamber of Commerce of the United States and South Carolina Chamber of Commerce v. NRLB, et. al.  The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce sought review of the final rule promulgated by the NRLB requiring employers to post notice to employees of their rights under the NLRA.  The Chambers of Commerce and the NLRB filed cross motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted the summary judgment motion of the Chambers of Commerce finding that the notice requirement exceeds the NLRB’s authority.

Specifically, the South Carolina district court pointed out that the NLRB had not, in 75 years, ever previously required a notice to be posted.  The Court noted that the poster requirement “proactively dictates employer conduct prior to the filing of any petition or charge, and such a rule is inconsistent with the Board’s reactive role under the Act.”  Opinion at page 20.  The Court further analyzed the statutory text and legislative history and could find nothing that provided any authority to the NLRB to require the notice to be posted.  The Court compared the NLRA to other employment statutes (like Title VII) which affirmatively require notices to be posted.  Noting that the NLRA contained no such provisions, the Court found that the notice rule exceeded the NLRB’s authority.

For now, employers are not required to post the NLRB poster.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.