The National Labor Relations Board through November 5 has reconsidered 35 decisions issued by Board panels found to be invalidly constituted under the Supreme Court’s ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning.
The Big Impact from Nixed Recess Appointments: Supreme Court’s Rejection of President Obama’s NLRB Picks Could Upset Hundreds of Decisions.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month decided the Noel Canning case, unanimously holding that President Obama’s proposed recess appointments of Terrence Flynn, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to be members of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) were unconstitutional.
The National Labor Relations Board has been busy since the Supreme Court’s June 26th Noel Canning decision trying to address the issues and uncertainty resulting from the Court’s holding that recess appointments of Board members on January 4, 2012, were invalid because the Senate was not actually in recess.
In case you were hoping that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Noel Canning would finally put to bed any questions regarding President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB, or that the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton might alter the NLRB’s position on the right of employers to require employees to abide by mandatory arbitration agreements , think again.
The NLRB v. Noel Canning case is one many in the employment law community have had their eye on for a very long time. Though the NLRB has since figured out its authority issues, the impact of whether or not President Obama’s recess appointments to the Board were legal was still plenty large.
When the Supreme Court decided National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning on June 26, 2014, it invalidated the cases that the NLRB decided between January 4, 2012 and August 3, 2013.
The Supreme Court’s decision last week in NLRB v. Canning left many employers scratching their heads – and with good reason.
On June 26, 2014, in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided that President Obama’s purported “recess” appointments of National Labor Relations Board members on January 4, 2012 violated the Constitution because the Senate was not on a break of “sufficient length” when the President appointed them, and thus the President could not dispense with Senate consent of the appointments.
It should be no surprise that the CFPB and Republican Congressman Jeb Hensarling, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, have different perspectives on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week that President Obama exceeded his Constitutional recess appointment authority when he filled three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 .
On June 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) on January 4, 2012, were unconstitutional.