In 2002, a union local began to organize employees at a hotel. Following failed bargaining between the union and the hotel, the union filed numerous unfair labor practice charges with the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The regional director investigated the claims and issued an unfair labor practices complaint. After a 13-day hearing, an administrative law judge determined that the hotel had violated numerous sections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and recommended that the NLRB order the hotel to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices and take other remedial actions. The hotel filed extensive objections to the ruling. As the case remained pending before the Board, the regional director filed a petition with the district court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The hotel opposed the petition, claiming that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the regional director had failed to obtain the Board’s approval to file the Section 10(j) petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that although the Board may reserve the ultimate decision of whether to petition for Section 10(j) relief in individual cases for itself, it may also exercise its power to petition for such relief by authorizing the general counsel to decide in which case to seek relief on the NLRB’s behalf. The Ninth Circuit determined that as far as delegation to subordinates is concerned, express statutory authority for delegation was not required. As such, the general counsel is the NLRB’s subordinate insofar as Section 3(d) of the NLRA requires the general counsel to perform “such other duties as the Board may prescribe.”NLRB
More from this author
- Employee Witness Entitled to Same Protections against Retaliation as Complaining Employee
- Sixth Circuit: No Gender Bias in Wage Difference between Male and Female Counterparts
- Employer Prevails Against FMLA Interference Claim But Sixth Circuit Declines to Apply Directly the "Honest Belief" Defense
- The Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Care Mandate Applies to Covered For-Profit Corporate Employers
© 2013 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
© HRlegalblog, 2011 - 2013, All Rights Reserved. Subscribe to Free updates!