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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT