Defense of Automotive Systems Manufacturer and Supplier Against Unfair Labor Practice Charges

Client Type: Private Company

We represented an automotive systems manufacturer and supplier in what was a potentially precedent-setting case challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) structure as unconstitutional.

The NLRB had scheduled an unfair labor practice hearing over NLRB allegations that the company had committed unfair labor practices in terminating an employee for workplace violence (who was also seeking to gather union support, unbeknownst to the company when the original termination decision was made) and for various other actions during a subsequent union election campaign. The NLRB sought reinstatement of a terminated union supporter and a bargaining order under its recently issued Cemex decision and the former General Counsel announced that it was seeking to set NLRB law regarding the unlawfulness of captive audience speeches during a campaign, create an assumption of unlawfulness due to video cameras on an employer’s premises, and reverse any obligation a union has to file post-election objections.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, and as part of our defense strategy, we filed suit in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the unfair labor practice proceedings before an NLRB administrative law judge, primarily on the grounds that the removal restrictions for NLRB members and for Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) violate the constitution. After the lower court denied the request for an injunction, the ULP hearing took place over four days before an NLRB administrative law judge.  In a parallel proceeding, we appealed the lower court’s denial of the injunction to the Sixth Circuit. On the eve of oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on the appeal of the injunction denial, the ALJ ruled in YAPP’s favor in the underlying ULP proceeding.

The ALJ issued her opinion denying essentially all but a few minor of the NLRB’s demands for relief. She denied the NLRB’s request for the terminated employee to be reinstated, denied the request for a bargaining order, and denied other types of relief, requiring that YAPP post a notice regarding certain relatively minor violations. Given this win on the major issues, YAPP and the NLRB/Union settled the matter in conjunction with YAPP’s withdrawal of its Sixth Circuit appeal (after our oral argument) in the matter challenging the NLRB’s unconstitutionality.

We represented an automotive systems manufacturer and supplier in what was a potentially precedent-setting case challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) structure as unconstitutional.

The NLRB had scheduled an unfair labor practice hearing over NLRB allegations that the company had committed unfair labor practices in terminating an employee for workplace violence (who was also seeking to gather union support, unbeknownst to the company when the original termination decision was made) and for various other actions during a subsequent union election campaign. The NLRB sought reinstatement of a terminated union supporter and a bargaining order under its recently issued Cemex decision and the former General Counsel announced that it was seeking to set NLRB law regarding the unlawfulness of captive audience speeches during a campaign, create an assumption of unlawfulness due to video cameras on an employer’s premises, and reverse any obligation a union has to file post-election objections.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, and as part of our defense strategy, we filed suit in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the unfair labor practice proceedings before an NLRB administrative law judge, primarily on the grounds that the removal restrictions for NLRB members and for Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) violate the constitution. After the lower court denied the request for an injunction, the ULP hearing took place over four days before an NLRB administrative law judge.  In a parallel proceeding, we appealed the lower court’s denial of the injunction to the Sixth Circuit. On the eve of oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on the appeal of the injunction denial, the ALJ ruled in YAPP’s favor in the underlying ULP proceeding.

The ALJ issued her opinion denying essentially all but a few minor of the NLRB’s demands for relief. She denied the NLRB’s request for the terminated employee to be reinstated, denied the request for a bargaining order, and denied other types of relief, requiring that YAPP post a notice regarding certain relatively minor violations. Given this win on the major issues, YAPP and the NLRB/Union settled the matter in conjunction with YAPP’s withdrawal of its Sixth Circuit appeal (after our oral argument) in the matter challenging the NLRB’s unconstitutionality.