National Labor Relations Board Summary

SUMMARY

From January of 2008 through March of 2010, the President and Senate left the National Labor Relations Board with only two members because the term of two board members expired and there had been no timely reappointment. During that time, the two-person National Labor Relations Board ruled period over six hundred cases on. One of the decisions of the board was against New Process Steel, L.P. for unfair labor practices by management. The Union representing New Process Steel employees at their plant in Indiana filed complaint that the employer failed to collective bargain with the union and therefore violated their collective bargaining agreement. New Process Steel, L.P., however, challenged the NLRB’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals

BRIEF ANSWER

No. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, with a five-justice majority, that the National Labor Relations Act does not allow a two-member board to use their power to determine cases. Furthermore, the court concluded that an accurate interpretation of the NLRB’s delegation clause does say that the board must have a total of at least three members at all times in order to exercise their authority.

After review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court identified two interpretations of the delegation clause of the National Labor Relations Act. Those interpretations said either it is required, “only that a delegee group contain three members at the time of delegation (and not necessarily during the time the delegee group exercises its power)” or that “the delegee group maintain a membership of three in order for the delegation to remain valid.” The Court decided, however, that most meaningful interpretation of the NLRA’s delegation clause requires there to always be at least three members of the National Labor Relations Board in order for the board to exercise their administrative law power. Furthermore they ruled that a two-person board could only rule in a case were there are three active members on the NLRB, but only two participate in the ruling, because in that case the group is still “properly constituted.” The U.S. Supreme court made this decision base on the meaning of section 3(b) of the NLRA, on their interpretation of congress’s intention behind the amending the statute in 1947, and the common law surrounding the issue. This was a challenging decision because of the