FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 20, 2007                   Contact: John Reid

NCLC Applauds Supreme Court’s Review of California Labor Law

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) today applauded the decision of the Supreme Court to review the case, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Brown. NCLC's lawsuit, filed on behalf of the U.S. Chamber and a number of California associations and businesses, challenges a California law that restricts employers’ right to speak against the unionization of their employees, including through the threat of union lawsuits and the risk of significant damages. NCLC urges the high Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding the California law.

“We uphold the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of free speech as a means to stabilize labor relations and the balance of power between employers and employees,” said Robin Conrad, NCLC's executive vice president. “Federal law has allowed employers’ the right to express their views on unionization and that right should be protected.”

California Assembly Bill 1889, signed into law in 2000, forbids employers from using state monies to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. The Chamber successfully sued the state on federal preemption grounds in 2002. A three judge appellate panel agreed that the California law was preempted. The full Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case and upheld the law in September 2006 despite the objections of three dissenting judges. This prompted the Chamber's appeal for Supreme Court review.

“Once again the Ninth Circuit decision is completely at odds with the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that a state may not use either its spending or police power to alter the NLRA’s regulatory balance between labor and management,” Conrad stated. “If left in place, the burden California imposes on employers—which includes creating a separate system of books segregating state and private funds—will have a significant deterrent effect on federally-protected speech.”

NCLC

###