We are representing an automotive systems manufacturer and supplier in a potentially precedent-setting case challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) structure as unconstitutional.
We defended the client in a four-day hearing in which the NLRB alleged 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 is seeking a bargaining order under its recently issued Cemex decision and the current General Counsel announced that it is 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.
As part of our defense strategy, we sought a preliminary injunction asking the court to halt 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 violate the constitution. The matter remains on appeal at the Sixth Circuit.