ILNews

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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT