WASHINGTON, D.C. | November 16, 2011 -
Thirty-six House Republicans have filed an amicus brief in support of legal efforts to overturn an unlawful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulation. The controversial regulation requires every employer under the board’s jurisdiction to post in the workplace a biased and vague notice of employees’ labor rights. Numerous organizations representing workers and employers initiated a legal challenge to nullify the board’s rule.
“Without legal authority, the board is forcing a flawed regulation on virtually every private employer,” said House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN). “It is Congress’ duty to write the law, and federal agencies must be held accountable for enforcing the law in a responsible manner. Without a doubt, the Obama NLRB is manipulating federal labor policies to advance an activist agenda and it must be stopped. I am pleased to join this effort on behalf of our nation’s employers and workers to end this unlawful regulatory scheme.”
The congressional amicus brief raises three critical legal issues:
- Congress did not – and has not – granted the board the authority to require a general notice posting by employers. Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, other labor and employment laws explicitly authorize notice postings. Absent that explicit authority, and a clear intent by the authors of the National Labor Relations Act to withhold that authority, the board’s regulation exceeds its lawful powers;
- Congress has restricted the board’s authority to actual parties, in pending cases, and adjudicated facts based on an evidentiary hearing. The limited scope of the board’s authority is central to the law’s constitutional standing, and it cannot be expanded at the whim of the current board majority; and
- The board’s regulation undermines efforts by Congress to inform workers of other important rights, including workplace safety and discrimination. A board of bureaucrats cannot be allowed to undermine this important responsibility of the people’s elected representatives.
The amicus brief was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina Charleston Division. To read the amicus brief, click here.
# # #