Back in Business: The NLRB Is Once Again a Party of Five

05 August 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013, the Senate voted to confirm all five of President Obama’s nominees to the NLRB to avoid a major showdown over Senate procedural rules regarding approval of executive appointments. The Senate’s approval of the nominations means that for the first time in more than a decade, the NLRB will have a full complement of Board members and can resume and conduct business as “usual” — or at least as close to “usual” as the Board has seen in the last decade. The return of the Board to full membership likely also marks a winding down of much, but not all, of the political and legal wrangling that has plagued, and in some cases arguably paralyzed, the Board at various points in the last 10 years.

For example, between January 1, 2008 and April 5, 2010, the NLRB had only two working members due to failures by the executive and legislative branches to appoint and confirm new members. During this time period, many argued that by law, the Board required a quorum of at least three members to issue administrative decisions interpreting and applying the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Nevertheless, the Board continued issuing decisions by only two working members. However, in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a two-member Board did not have the authority under the NLRA to issue decisions , thereby vacating the 554 decisions the Board had issued during the two-year period it lacked a three-member quorum. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Board, with a full quorum, then had to revisit those 554 decisions and cure the inherent error in decisions decided without the legal authority to do so.

More recently, the Board has found itself squarely at the center of a major constitutional debate relating to the relative powers of the president to appoint individuals to executive branch positions and the Senate to approve those appointments. As we have previously reported, earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in a decision known as Noel Canning that President Obama had unconstitutionally appointed two members to the NLRB without securing Senate approval for those appointments while the Senate was not formally in recess. That decision has touched off another debate about the power of the Board to operate, causing many cases proceeding under the NLRA, including in the various courts of appeals, to radically slow down. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision, and if it agrees that President Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional, another wave of invalidated Board decisions will wash over the world of labor.

The return of the Board to full membership likely means that, at least until the terms of the newly minted members begin to expire and another round of political wrangling potentially begins, the timeframes for much of the work performed by the Board should start to gradually shorten. Employers involved in representation matters and Board litigation, particularly litigation involving requests for full Board rulings, should begin to see gradually quicker processing of Board matters. This may not necessarily be welcome news to employers, as NLRB delays may have favorably affected union strength and labor relations issues at their locations. For other employers seeking timely resolution to Board-related matters, the expected gradual improvement to Board processing times may be more favorably received.

However, the return of the Board to full strength likely does not signal the end of the constitutional issues raised by the Noel Canning decision and its potential impact on the decisions previously issued by arguably unconstitutionally appointed members. While the new Board members could reexamine and reissue those decisions, commentators have opined that the Obama administration will avoid taking steps that might moot the issues before the Supreme Court because of the important constitutional matters present in that case. There is also the specter that a kept-intact D.C. Circuit decision without full Supreme Court review will substantially weaken executive branch power in the future. One way or another, the Senate’s confirmation of five Board members marks the likely beginning of the end of a long period of uncertainty with the NLRB. The actual ramifications of this transition for employers going forward remain to be seen.

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