National Labor Relations Board

  • August 6, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Michael Scimone, Associate, Outten & Golden LLP.

    Last Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel announced that his office would prosecute McDonald’s USA, LLC for unfair labor practices committed by its franchisees (i.e., the individual restaurants not owned by the corporation, which is most of them).  That means that the NLRB may hold McDonald’s liable if its nominally “independent” franchisees interfere with or retaliate against workers who try to form unions, strike, or demand better pay or working conditions. 

    The GC’s move is an effort to apply common sense to an all-too-common legal dodge.  McDonald’s claims that its franchisees are free to make their own decisions about labor matters.  But that’s hardly true in practice.  Fast food franchisors like McDonald’s have enormous leverage over their franchisees.  McDonald’s computers track franchisees’ sales and labor costs, monitor employee schedules, and calculate how much labor the stores need.  And McDonald’s is famous for controlling just about everything else in its restaurants – where they buy supplies, how they cook their food, and how they advertise the brand.  It even owns the restaurants themselves.  What’s left for the franchisee to control?  Is it realistic to imagine that a franchisee could bargain over wages, schedules, or health and safety without McDonald’s at the table?

    The franchisor-franchisee smokescreen allows McDonald’s to avoid responsibility for a range of labor abuses, from anti-union interference to wage theft.  McDonald’s workers have filed multiple lawsuits seeking to hold McDonald’s, along with its franchisees, responsible for ripping off workers by making them work off the clock and stealing their already-low wages.  McDonald’s, of course, denies all responsibility.

  • July 19, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond

    When faced with drastic changes to its own rules, the Senate apparently can reach a compromise.  A Democratic threat to use the so-called nuclear option to change the filibuster rules caused Republicans to agree to cease blocking a vote on President Obama’s nominees to various agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Department of Labor.

    This compromise, reached July 16, will enable an up or down vote on the package of five nominees for the NLRB.  As a part of the agreement, the president consented not to re-nominate the two current recess appointees to the Board.  Instead, the president has nominated two experienced labor attorneys, Nancy Schiffer, who recently retired from her position as Associate General Counsel for the AFL-CIO, and Kent Hirozawa, who is on the staff of current Board Chair Mark Gaston Pearce. President Obama previously re-nominated Pearce, whose term expires in August, and nominated two attorneys with long careers representing management, Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson. Thus the package contains the traditional three members from the president’s party and two from the opposing party.

    Hearings are scheduled on the nominations and the agreement raises hope that the Board members will be confirmed before Board Chair Pearce’s term expires in late August, when the agency would once again be unable to act because of the absence of quorum. The four blocked nominees to other agencies have already been confirmed. The actions of Republican senators on the NLRB nominees were part of a pattern of obstructing the president’s nominees. Blocking the NLRB nominees was particularly egregious, however, because the NLRB members, unlike the EPA Administrator and Labor Secretary, serve a judicial function and cannot act without a quorum.

  • May 29, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The Senate’s obstructionists, meaning the Republican caucus, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and uphold a federal appeals court decision that greatly narrowed or rewrote the president’s power to make recess appointments.

    And that’s not terribly surprising. The case involves vacant seats on the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that Senate Republicans have fought to keep business friendly or inoperative. Republicans have convinced themselves that the NLRB, which was created to protect both rights of workers and employers, is all about making life tough on corporate America. The Senate Republicans are of course deluded, but consistent in their support of the powerful. (The Supreme Court could decide this summer to take the case for review.)

    In January, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Noel Canning v. NLRB held that President Obama ran afoul the Constitution when he appointed Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to vacant seats on the five-member agency during a 20-day recess of Congress. Obama made the appointments after Republicans continued to stall on considering the nominations. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president authority to make recess appointments. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion was crafted by three-Republican appointees and was widely panned by legal scholars, noting that presidents have for a century used recess appointments to fill executive and judicial vacancies to help keep the government functioning. Also, as Ohio State University law school professor Peter Shane has pointed out, three other federal courts of appeals have ruled the other way, upholding the presidents’ recess appointment powers. (Another federal appeals court, however, has followed the wobbly D.C. Circuit’s opinion, so there is a split among the circuits, which heightens the chance the U.S. Supreme Court will jump into the mix and take Canning for review.)

    In a brief urging the high court to take Canning, 45 Republican senators argued that the D.C. Circuit’s opinion should be upheld. Such appointments, the brief states “have become a means to sidestep Senate confirmation.” They added, “In any case, the President himself has made clear that he will resort to recess appointments, and indeed has done so, precisely to circumvent perceived Senate opposition.” See Sahil Kapur’s reporting on the GOP brief.

    But there is nothing perceived about the opposition Republicans have mounted to hamstring the NLRB and for that matter greatly slow the efforts of the president to fill vacancies on the federal bench, which has resulted in a crisis on the bench with vacancies hovering around 80.

    Today, the Constitutional Accountability Center weighed in on the side of the Obama administration, which has asked the high court to take the case and reverse the D.C. Circuit.

  • May 17, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Sen. Harkin is the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

    This week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on the full slate of five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Mark Gaston Pearce, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, Harry I. Johnson III, and Philip Andrew Miscimarra. These are vitally important nominations because the enforcement of our labor laws is essential to the growth of a strong middle class and to the smooth functioning of businesses large and small across the country. Without Congressional action, the NLRB will go dark in August -- which could have a truly troubling impact on our economy.

    Workers and employers alike rely on the fact that the Board will enforce our labor laws, and enforce contracts between labor and management.  For the thousands of American workers fired every year for trying to organize a union in their workplace, an NLRB out of commission means that those workers would have to wait years before they could get their job back or any back pay for lost wages. From the business perspective, the NLRB also ensures that unions do not step outside the law in their interactions with workers or employers. Perhaps that is why a Senior Counsel to the National Federal of Independent Businesses (NFIB) said that “to have the Board totally shut down would be a travesty.”

    Despite this agreement on the importance of the Board’s operations, in recent years, Congressional Republicans have waged unprecedented attacks on the NLRB.  While it appears that their real goal might be to repeal the National Labor Relations Act altogether, because they know that an attempt to repeal the law directly would surely fail, they have worked instead to dismantle the Board by attempting to hold up nominees or strip its funding. In the last Congress, House Republicans launched a series of efforts to shutter the NLRB, including voting to defund the Board entirely, and proposing a budget to force the Board to furlough all of its employees for most of 2011. Republicans have also proposed bills to abolish the NLRB and bills to limit its ability to enforce decisions and promulgate regulations.

    Of course, these efforts to undermine the Board are all part of a larger Republican assault on the unions and on collective bargaining in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  These attacks don’t just hurt unions -- they undermine the very existence of the American middle class.

  • May 15, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Anne Marie Lofaso, Associate Dean for Faculty Research & Development, Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law

    The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold hearings tomorrow on President Obama’s five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). So why, when there are so many vitally important issues facing our country – the enormous budget deficit and sequester being only two of those issues – is the Senate spending its time on the confirmation of five public servants?

    Since the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments, the Board has been comprised of five members, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. For years, Senate Democrats and Republicans held to a gentlemen’s agreement that the president would select three Board members from the majority party and two Board members from the minority party. Over the years, these nominations became increasingly more political, with administrative decisions predictably oscillating between pro-business and pro-labor-enforcement results, depending on which party held control of the Executive Branch.

    In an administrative agency that tends to make law by adjudication rather than rulemaking, this back-and-forth between reasonable interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) is both lawful and par for the course. Those in power are privileged to re-interpret the statute that they are charged by Congress with administering so long as the following conditions are met: (1) a case comes along that raises the issue; (2) their statutory interpretation is reasonable and permissible/constitutional; and (3) they give reasons for changing their mind.