Teamsters Argue Against Obama Recess Appointment Fight

Teamsters Argue Against Obama Recess Appointment Fight

When President Obama appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board when Congress was in session, he violated the Constitution and the National Right to Work Legal Foundation went right to work.  We filed a lawsuit in federal court and from the initial oral arguments, things went well.  Interesting, we have a new ally in the fight -- an Oklahoma local of the Teamsters union: An Oklahoma local of the Teamsters Union is disputing recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), charging that recess appointments were made while the U.S. Senate was not in recess, according to legal documents obtained by The Daily Caller. “The union disputes that the board is properly and sufficiently constituted, as ‘recess’ appointments (to NLRB) were made when there was no recess,” according to a Dec. 12, 2012 affidavit signed by Teamsters Local 523 President Gary Ketchum.

NLRB Tips Scales of Justice

NLRB Tips Scales of Justice

A new congressional report has determined that the National Labor Relations Board has abandoned its role as an impartial arbitrator and has become an aggressive advocate for big labor: The National Labor Relations Board -- the federal agency tasked with protecting employees from unfair management or union practices -- has become a biased advocate for big labor, according to a newly released congressional report. The blunt assessment was offered in a staff report released Thursday by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. "The NLRB is supposed to be a fair and neutral arbitrator. It's supposed to have a firewall between the judges, if you will, and representatives, as a plaintiff," Issa told Fox News. "Just the opposite is the case." The NLRB is designed much like an appeals court. The general counsel serves in a prosecutor-like role, and the five-member board acts as the jury. As in a court of law, rules forbid the two from communicating about pending cases. But NLRB emails turned over to the committee under force of subpoena reveal many such  ex-parte communications, some of them dealing with the challenge to Boeing's decision to build a non-union assembly plant in South Carolina to augment production of the highly sought-after 787 Dreamliner. In one email obtained by the committee, the associate general counsel of the NLRB, Barry Kearney, praised a union press release about the Boeing case, stating, "hooray for the red, white, and blue." In another email, reacting to Boeing's intention to fight the complaint, an NLRB attorney wrote

42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB

42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB "Recess" Appointments

Forty-Two United States Senators have joined with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation in protesting President Obama's illegal appointment to the National Labor Relations Board: [media-credit name=" " align="alignright" width="150"][/media-credit]Forty-two Republican senators filed an amicus brief this week in the case of Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v. NLRB, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1115, arguing that the Board lacks a quorum because President Obama's January 2012 recess appointments were invalid. Employer Noel Canning has petitioned the Court of Appeals to deny enforcement to a Board decision by a three-member panel. Among their arguments, the employer asserts that panel members Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn were not confirmed by the Senate and that Congress was in session at the time of their purported recess appointments.

42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB "Recess" Appointments

42 GOP Senators Challenge Obama's So-Called NLRB "Recess" Appointments

Forty-Two United States Senators have joined with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation in protesting President Obama's illegal appointment to the National Labor Relations Board: [media-credit name=" " align="alignright" width="150"][/media-credit]Forty-two Republican senators filed an amicus brief this week in the case of Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v. NLRB, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1115, arguing that the Board lacks a quorum because President Obama's January 2012 recess appointments were invalid. Employer Noel Canning has petitioned the Court of Appeals to deny enforcement to a Board decision by a three-member panel. Among their arguments, the employer asserts that panel members Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn were not confirmed by the Senate and that Congress was in session at the time of their purported recess appointments.

NLRB'S  Overreach

NLRB'S Overreach

[media-credit id=7 align="alignright" width="150"][/media-credit]In their aggressive overreach to help the union bosses, the National Labor Relations Board has a devastating string of courtroom losses that are putting them back into place.  The House Education and Workforce Committee looks at their grasp for more power: This week, the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suffered yet another defeat in federal court. On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg – appointed to the federal bench last year by President Obama – rejected the board’s recent ambush election rule. During the final days of 2011, the Obama labor board jammed through the regulatory process sweeping changes to long-standing rules governing union elections, changes that undermine employer free speech and worker free choice. As Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline noted: The Obama board’s rush to enact this rule before it loses its quorum confirms what my Republican colleagues and I have suspected all along – this board is not fighting for the best interests of our workforce, but instead is determined to advance an activist, pro-union agenda at any cost. Yet in their haste to adopt a flawed rule, board members Mark Pearce and Craig Becker neglected to follow the law. Citing Hollywood icon Woody Allen, Judge Boasberg writes: Eighty percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters – even when the quorum is constituted electronically. In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.