D.C. Circuit invalidates NLRB posting requirement
The D.C. Circuit struck another blow to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Tuesday, when it found that the board could not require businesses to post notices informing employees of their right to unionize.
May 08, 2013 at 05:15 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The D.C. Circuit struck another blow to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Tuesday, when it found that the board could not require businesses to post notices informing employees of their right to unionize.
In January, the D.C. Circuit invalidated President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB, throwing it into a state of uncertainty. This latest decision invalidates one of the NLRB's biggest pro-labor pushes before that happened.
The court wrote that the right to freedom of speech “necessarily protects … the right of employers (and unions) not to speak.” As long as the business isn't threatening employees, federal law prohibits the NLRB from disciplining it for any speech or lack thereof, the court unanimously ruled. This means that businesses will not have to post the notices that the NLRB mandated in 2011.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more NLRB coverage on InsideCounsel, see below:
Labor: The NLRB will not be ignored
Target handbook unlawfully discouraged union activity, NLRB says
D.C. Circuit dismisses NLRB charges against medical center
Cases pit Native American sovereignty against NLRB authority
The D.C. Circuit struck another blow to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Tuesday, when it found that the board could not require businesses to post notices informing employees of their right to unionize.
In January, the D.C. Circuit invalidated President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB, throwing it into a state of uncertainty. This latest decision invalidates one of the NLRB's biggest pro-labor pushes before that happened.
The court wrote that the right to freedom of speech “necessarily protects … the right of employers (and unions) not to speak.” As long as the business isn't threatening employees, federal law prohibits the NLRB from disciplining it for any speech or lack thereof, the court unanimously ruled. This means that businesses will not have to post the notices that the NLRB mandated in 2011.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more NLRB coverage on InsideCounsel, see below:
Labor: The NLRB will not be ignored
Target handbook unlawfully discouraged union activity, NLRB says
D.C. Circuit dismisses NLRB charges against medical center
Cases pit Native American sovereignty against NLRB authority
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
© 2025 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 All
Antitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
6 minute read
John Deere Annual Meeting Offers Peek Into DEI Strife That Looms for Companies Nationwide
7 minute read
Up-and-Comer Scores First Legal Chief Post With Baltimore Orioles, the Team He Cheered for as Kid
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
