Judge nixes newspaper's attack on NLRB, but says it's 'not outlandish'
By Daniel Wiessner
Oct 23 (Reuters) -A federal judge has rejected a Pittsburgh newspaper publisher's claims that the National Labor Relations Board's structure is unconstitutional, but suggested that decades of precedent backing the agency could be vulnerable to a growing number of legal challenges.
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon in Pittsburgh said in a brief docket entry on Tuesday that a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the National Labor Relations Act, which had been adopted two years earlier was still good law, contrary to arguments by PG Publishing, the owner of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Bissoon denied PG's motion to dismiss an NLRB petition seeking to force the company to bargain in good faith with three unions pending the outcome of a related administrative case at the board.
PG claims that the NLRB's in-house enforcement proceedings are illegal, echoing arguments in more than 20 lawsuits filed against the board, and that the agency lacks the power to seek court injunctions, which it does in a small number of cases each year.
Bissoon said those arguments were foreclosed by the 1937 ruling in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and, much more recently, the Supreme Court's June ruling clarifying the standard the board must meet to win an injunction in court.
But the judge said that respect for the legal doctrine that courts should follow existing precedent, known as stare decisis, "appears less 'in vogue' as of late."
"While PG's positions are not outlandish by contemporary standards, this Court declines its invitation to ignore nearly a century's worth of settled jurisprudence," wrote Bissoon, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama.
The Post-Gazette and an NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment.
In the underlying board case, PG is accused of bargaining in bad faith with three of its employees' unions and unilaterally implementing changes to the working conditions of newsroom staff in the absence of a bargaining agreement. The company has denied wrongdoing.
The NLRB filed a court petition in August seeking a temporary order requiring PG to bargain in good faith with the unions until the board case is resolved. PG moved to dismiss the petition on Monday, arguing that NLRB administrative judges and the board's five members are improperly shielded from being removed at will by the president.
Bissoon on Tuesday said she agreed with a federal judge in Michigan who recently rejected those arguments in a lawsuit by auto parts manufacturer Yapp USA Automotive Systems. The Supreme Court last week denied Yapp's petition to block a board case against it from moving forward while it appeals the judge's decision.
At least four other federal judges have sided with the NLRB in bids by other companies, including Amazon, to block administrative cases from proceeding while they pursue challenges to the agency's structure.
Three judges in Texas, meanwhile, have blocked board cases against Elon Musk's SpaceX, pipeline company Energy Transfer, and the operator of a search engine for social services, prompting appeals by the NLRB.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely regarded as the most conservative federal appeals court, has scheduled arguments in the Amazon and SpaceX cases for Nov. 18.
The case is Wilson v. PG Publishing Co, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:24-cv-01166.
For the NLRB: Anne Tewksbury and Zuzana Murarova
For PG Publishing: Brian Hentosz and Morgan Dull of Littler Mendelson
Read more:
US Supreme Court backs Starbucks over fired pro-union workers
US judge rejects auto parts maker's challenge to NLRB structure
US Supreme Court won't block NLRB case pending challenge to its structure
Amazon wins temporary pause on NLRB case over NYC union election
SpaceX wins block on US labor board case over severance agreements
NLRB's Abruzzo hits back at 'low-road' companies challenging agency's structure
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
