NLRB does not challenge ‘poster rule’ decisions

IL Staff
January 7, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With the deadline for filing a petition passed, the National Labor Relations Board appears to have backed away from its so-called “poster rule.”

The NLRB did not petition the Supreme Court of the United States by the Jan. 2, 2014, cut-off date to review challenges to the rule that required employers to hang posters explaining workers’ rights. The proposed “Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act” was controversial because the poster that businesses were required to display included language on the right to join a union and collectively bargain.

Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals knocked down the rule in 2013.

In National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB, 12-5068 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2013), the court held the rule violated a company’s right to free speech which, the opinion noted, also includes the right not to speak. When the 4th Circuit issued its opinion in June 2013, picking up in Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 12-1757, where the D.C. Circuit left off. The court found the NLRB overstepped its authority.

However, as Barnes and Thornburg LLP attorney David Pryzbylski noted in his blog, the rule may not necessarily be dead.

“Accordingly, it appears the Poster Rule is dead – at least for now,” Pryzbylski wrote. “As we’ve noted on the Blog, the NLRB has a full five members for the first time in years, and more rulemaking is expected from the Board in the coming months and years. It is not out of the question that some modified form of the ‘Poster Rule’ could be attempted by the newly constituted NLRB.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit