Press Releases

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and 30 House Republicans this week filed a legal brief challenging a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulatory action that requires virtually every private employer to post a biased and vague notice of employee “rights” in the workplace.

In the brief, which was filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as part of the National Association of Manufacturers vs. National Labor Relations Board case, House Republicans reaffirm that the board has never been empowered by Congress to require a general notice posting by employers. As the members state:

The NLRA [National Labor Relations Act] and especially its legislative history demonstrate that the Notice Rule impermissibly constitutes NLRB’s exercise of authority over employers…Congress intentionally limited the Board’s jurisdiction to employers who are actual parties, in pending cases, and adjudicated facts, based on evidentiary hearings…the Notice Rule creates an obligation that Congress consciously chose not to impose on employers under the NLRA.

On March 2, a judge with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the board does not have the authority to automatically punish employers for failing to comply with the notice posting requirement. Additional, in April, a federal judge in South Carolina ruled the NLRB does not have the authority to force employers to post general notices in the workplace.

The legal challenge represents the latest effort by House Republicans to rein in the NLRB’s activist agenda. Last fall, the House of Representatives passed two bipartisan bills that will help roll back the NLRB’s job destroying policies and protect the rights of workers and employers. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587) prevents the NLRB from dictating the location of American jobs and the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 3094) defends employers’ free speech and workers’ free choice in union elections.

The amicus brief can be viewed here.

 

# # #