New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB

New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB
New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 23, 2010
Decided June 17, 2010
Full case name New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board
Docket nos. 08-1457
Prior history Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Holding
The NLRB does not have the authority to decide cases without the Congressionaly designated quorum
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito
Dissent Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer
Laws applied
Taft–Hartley Act

New Process Steel v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), was a case before the United States Supreme Court holding that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot make decisions without a quorum.

Background

The NLRB was created by Executive Order on June 29, 1934 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to oversee labor related disputes for private companies and the United States Postal Service. In 1947 the Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act which Congressionally approved of the NLRB. It required that its members be confirmed by the Senate and also increased its size from three to five. The Act also raised the quorum needed from two to three. In December 2007 three of its five members terms were set to expire. President George W. Bush attempted to nominate new members but was blocked by Senate Democrats. Just before the NLRB lost its quorum the five member board delegated its powers to the two remaining members. In between December 2007 and March 2009 the two issued almost 600 rulings. They informally decided to hear only noncontroversial opinions until the board had quorum. In September 2007 the board brought against New Process Steel two unfair labor practices. New Process Steel sued arguing that the board's actions were illegal because it lacked the Congressionally delegated quorum. The First, Second and Seventh Court of Appeals ruled in the government’s favor, however the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against it. The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the issue given the stakes and lack of agreement among the lower courts.

Decision of the Court

The question before the court was; Does the National Labor Relations Board have authority to decide cases with only two sitting members, where 29 U.S.C. § 153(b) provides that "three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board"?

The court ruled for the plaintiffs. The NLRB lacked the authority to issue rulings with only two members, regardless if a majority of the board had delegated its power. The court determined that as the statute was written Congress only allowed the NLRB to delegate power to three of the five members. If Congress had wanted to allow two members then it would have written it into the statute. It rejected the government’s argument for the sake of efficiency.

References


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужна курсовая?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. — NLRB v. Mackay Radio Telegraph Co. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 5–6, 1938 De …   Wikipedia

  • New Deal — This article is about the 1930s economic programs of the United States. For other uses, see New Deal (disambiguation). Top left: The Tennessee Valley Authority, part of the New Deal, being signed into law in 1933. Top right: Franklin Delano… …   Wikipedia

  • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation — Supreme Court of the United States …   Wikipedia

  • National Labor Relations Board — NLRB Agency overview Formed July 5, 1935 …   Wikipedia

  • Nathan Witt — (center), with NLRB Chair J. Warren Madden (left) and NLRB Chief Counsel Charles Fahy in 1937 Born February 11, 1903(1903 02 11) New York City, New York …   Wikipedia

  • The Blue Eagle At Work — The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace is a legal treatise written by Charles J. Morris which analyzes collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute governing most …   Wikipedia

  • Comprehensive campaign — A comprehensive campaign is labor union organizing or a collective bargaining campaign with a heavy focus on research, the use of community coalition building, publicity and public pressure, political and regulatory pressure, and economic and… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 — The Hughes Court, 1932–1937. Front row: Justices Brandeis and Van Devanter, Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices McReynolds and Sutherland. Back row: Justices Roberts, Butler, Stone, and Cardozo …   Wikipedia

  • Union busting — is a practice that is undertaken by an employer or their agents to prevent employees from joining a labor union, or to disempower, subvert, or destroy unions that already exist.During contract negotiations, established unions may declare a strike …   Wikipedia

  • Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 — The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the Court packing Bill, was a law proposed by United States President Franklin Roosevelt. While the bill contained many provisions, the most notorious one (which led to the name Court… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”