Advertisement

April 18, 2014

NLRB Bypasses DC Circuit Rehearing and Intends to Proceed to Supreme Court

The National Labor Relations Board has announced that it will forgo an en banc rehearing of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB which held that President Obama's recess appointments of Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block were unconstitutional.  Instead, the NLRB will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which is due on April 25, 2013.  Obviously there will be more to come on this story.

For our previous coverage of this story, see the follow BT Labor Relations articles:

BT Labor Relations – “D.C. Circuit Holds NLB Recess Appointments Invalid.”
BT Labor Relations – “Senator Introduces Bill to Overturn NLRB Decisions.”
BT Labor Relations – “If At First You Don’t Succeed: Obama Renominates NLRB Appointments.” 

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Adam Bartrom, Labor, Employment Attorney, Barnes Thornburg, Law firm
Associate

Adam Bartrom of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department collaborates with businesses to handle disputes and to create preventive strategies of all sizes. Adam dedicates his practice to representing management interests on the employment and traditional labor fronts. On the employment side, Adam routinely represents employers in state and federal courts and administrative agencies, such as the DOL, EEOC and other federal, state, and local administrative agencies. Adam has also effectively represented employers against claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair...

260-425-4629

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, atto