Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board

Case Updates

In an order dated 2/19/2013, the D.C. Court removed this case from the oral argument calendar and held it in abeyance per Noel Canning.

Previously, on 5/17/2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the ambush election rule is invalid “because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question.” Accordingly, the court granted the Chamber's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's motion.

Subsequently, the court rejected the NLRB’s motion to amend its 5/17/2012 judgment that the NLRB’s ambush election rule was invalid because it was adopted without a quorum. On 7/272012 the court ruled that the NLRB’s “new evidence” that a third board member was present in the NLRB’s electronic voting room when the rule was adopted was insufficient to prove that the court’s prior decision was a “clear error.” As a result, the ambush election rule is still invalid, and the NLRB’s agreement not to try to enforce the rule against employers is still in effect.

On 12/9/2013, the NLRB asked the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the appeal.

The U.S. Chamber has urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that ruled that the Ambush Election Rule is invalid “because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question.”

In addition to the D.C. District Court's ruling that Member Brian Hayes did not participate in the vote, depriving the Board of a quorum, the U.S. Chamber subsequently filed a 28(j) letter with the D.C. Circuit arguing that under the court's recent decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, the recess appointment of Member Craig Becker was invalid, and therefore, the Board would not have had a lawful quorum to promulgate the rule even if Member Hayes had participated in the vote.

The Ambush Election Rule, if left to stand, would lead to ‘drive-by’ accelerated union elections, which would deprive employers of the opportunity to rebut union propaganda. As a result, unionizing would become much easier because employees would only hear the unions’ arguments in favor of unionizing, without getting full information on the costs of unionizing to employees and employers alike.