Posted on 05/07/2013 11:33:59 AM PDT by jazusamo
A federal appeals on Tuesday court struck down regulations that would require posters about union rights in the workplace.
The court said the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violated the First Amendment when it mandated that businesses place notices in the workplace and on their company websites informing employees of their rights to unionize. Business that failed to comply would have faced charges of promoting “unfair labor practices.”
Industry groups, which quickly challenged the rule after it was issued, cheered the ruling. Jay Timmons, the president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, pledged to remain vigilant against “oversteps” by the “rogue” NLRB.
“The poster rule is a prime example of a government agency that seeks to fundamentally change the way employers and employees communicate,” Timmons said in a statement. “The ultimate result of the NLRB’s intrusion would be to create hostile work environments where none exist.”
Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who wrote the decision for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, said the rule was a clear violation of free speech rights because the government “selected the message and ordered its citizens to convey that message.”
Freedom of speech, Randolph wrote, “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”
In its court arguments, the NLRB said that the posters were necessary because “unions now represent only a small percentage of the private workforce, by the latest count just 7.3 percent.” Further, “immigrants make up an increasing proportion of the nation’s work force and are unlikely to be familiar with their workplace rights.”
Young adults and high school students, the NLRB argued, are also not likely to be “familiar with labor laws.”
The informational posters were mandated to be at least 11-inches by 17-inches and have text crafted by the NLRB, which explained unionizing rights and an employee’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Business groups argue the NLRB has favored unions under President Obama, and have pointed to the poster rule as one of the most egregious examples.
“Today’s decision is a monumental victory for small-business owners across this country who have been subject to the illegal actions of a labor board that has consistently failed to act as a neutral arbiter, as the law contemplates,” Karen Harned, executive director of National Federation Small Business Legal Center, said in a statement.
The advocacy group National Right to Work called the NLRB’s poster rule an “outrageous effort to transform itself into a taxpayer-funded arm of union organizing.”
This is the second major court defeat for the NLRB in recent weeks. The same court appeals court ruled President Obama’s recess appointments to the board were illegal, and therefore invalid. The independent agency is tasked with prosecuting unfair labor practices and conducting union elections.
“Stopping the NLRB’s burdensome agenda of placing itself into manufacturers’ day-to-day business operations is essential to preventing further government-inflicted damage to employee relations in the United States,” Timmons said.
The government should not be involved with labor/employer relations as that is a civil matter and the government must never take sides in any form.
One ray of subshine. Good to see.
Is the NLRB still run by Obama’s illegal recess appointments. If it is why hasn’t the Congress done something about it?
So, can employers put up the notice that employees can opt out of the political contribution portion of their dues?
Amen to that!
I thought so,
The strange thing is that someone is paying them. Why doesn’t the Congress cut off the funding for their pay.
Pffft. So.... even with the time this rule has been in place, exactly how many young adults and high school students have emerged to become union organizers?
Yeah.
If it is why hasn’t the Congress done something about it?
They're waiting for the Supremes to take the flak ...
Though I have to admit, I don’t quite understand it. There are already a half-dozen Federally mandated posters you must post in your break room. Why this one is any different, or the others don’t violate the First Amendment, makes no sense to me.
Only Congress can violate 1st Amendment imo. This is evidenced by the fact that the Founding States made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, to clarifiy that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress. So Congress has a constituton monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not.
In other words, constitutonally undefined "independent federal regulatory agencies" like the NLRB, EPA, etc., shouldn't even exist imo. Such agencies not only wrongly protect unelected federal bureaucrats who exercise regulatory powers, powers which the Constitution prohibits them from having, from the wrath of the voters in defiance of the statutes referenced above, but consider the following. Such agencies can also be regarded as a smoke-and-mirrors way for corrupt Congress to unconstitutionally expand its powers by wrongly ignoring its Article V requirement to petition the states for specific new powers via constitutional amendments. After all, the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate labor as the NLRB is doing, or to regulate environment as EPA is doing.
Well said, I couldn't agree more!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.