Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Legality of Two-Member NLRB Decisions
The board has operated with two members for more than two years.
March 23, 2010 at 08:00 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case challenging the legality of National Labor Relations Board decisions made while the agency has had only two people sitting on its five-member board. The board has operated with two members for more than two years because Democrats refused to confirm President George W. Bush's nominees, complaining they were pro-business, and Republicans are now are doing the same to President Barack Obama's nominees, who they see as pro-union.
According to the Associated Press:
“Decisions in hundreds of worker-employer battles could be thrown out if the Supreme Court rules against the NLRB. That decision could also force the shutdown of the NLRB when Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and White House can't agree on who should be on the board.”
Read the full AP story.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case challenging the legality of National Labor Relations Board decisions made while the agency has had only two people sitting on its five-member board. The board has operated with two members for more than two years because Democrats refused to confirm President George W. Bush's nominees, complaining they were pro-business, and Republicans are now are doing the same to President Barack Obama's nominees, who they see as pro-union.
According to
“Decisions in hundreds of worker-employer battles could be thrown out if the Supreme Court rules against the NLRB. That decision could also force the shutdown of the NLRB when Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and White House can't agree on who should be on the board.”
Read the full AP story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Rates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute readFinancial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250