New Process Steel – The Supreme Court Sends The NLRB Back To The Drawing Board
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.17.10
The Supreme Court invalidated today almost 600 decisions issued by the two members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who served for a 27-month period beginning in December, 2007. The Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ruled that the two member panel did not constitute a "quorum" authorized to decide cases under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 3(b) is the statutory provision that sets forth the familiar three member panel quorum provisions used by the NLRB in deciding cases. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Stevens, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayer, dissented, agreeing with the government's proposed reading of the statutory provision.
The practical effect of New Process Steel will be significant. The NLRB now has four members, as a result of two recess appointments made by President Obama in March of this year. Those appointments, which include Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, are widely expected to change the ideological make-up of the NLRB. The almost 600 decisions vacated by the Court's decision in New Process Steel are now fair game for reconsideration by the new Democratic-controlled majority of the NLRB.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
