Advertisement

May 20, 2013

D.C. Circuit Court Blocks NLRB's Notice Posting Rule

Posting Requirement Delayed at least through September 2012

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an injunction blocking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from implementing its new notice posting rule. The rule would have required all employers subject to the NLRB’s jurisdiction to post a notice of Employee Rights, including the right to unionize, in the workplace by April 30, 2012.

As a result of the court’s injunction, covered employers need not post the notice pending the resolution of the appeal, which will not be scheduled for oral argument until September 2012.

As we reported last month, the D.C. district court partially rejected a challenge to the rule filed by business groups finding that the NLRB has the statutory authority to require the posting of the notice but not to implement proposed penalties for failure to post. The district court denied a request for an injunction. The business groups immediately appealed.

In its decision granting the emergency injunction pending appeal, the D.C. Circuit noted that the NLRB had “postponed operation of the rule during the pendency of the district proceedings in order to give the district court an opportunity to consider the legal merits before the rule took effect. That postponement is in some tension with the [NLRB’s] current argument that the rule should take effect during the pendency of this court’s proceedings before the court has had an opportunity to similarly consider the legal merits.” The court also noted that the Board’s failure to decide whether it would appeal the district court’s striking of the penalty provisions created “uncertainty about enforcement,” which also weighed in favor of “temporarily preserving the status quo” during the appeal.

As we reported yesterday, a South Carolina federal district court ruled on April 13, 2012 that the posting requirement exceeded the NLRB’s authority and was unlawful. 

The D. C. Circuit’s action resolves any issues created by the differing federal court decisions and makes clear that employers need not post the notice unless and until the injunction is lifted following the conclusion of the appeal.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Counsel

John A. Ferguson Jr. advises employers on all aspects of traditional labor and employment law, and has developed a specific litigation capability in defending employers before state and federal courts, state and federal administrative agencies, in hearings, arbitrations and collective bargaining. Client representation includes issues of workers’ compensation retaliation, the National Labor Relations Association (NLRA), Texas Labor Code, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and...

210.299.3518
Partner

Nancy O'Connor represents client interests in compliance and dispute management in general commercial employment settings. She has conducted numerous internal investigations. An experienced negotiator, she manages both collective bargaining and individual executive employment compensation matters and provides guidance on labor-related issues in corporate transactional matters. She is particularly familiar with employment issues in the hospitality, academic, telecommunications, federal procurement, security and energy industries. 

...

202-828-5846

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.