U.S. District Court Upholds NLRB's Notice Posting Rule, But Holds Certain Enforcement Provisions To Be Invalid
March 4, 2012
On March 2, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in the lawsuit filed by the National Association of Manufacturers ("NAM") and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Fund ("NRTW") challenging the notice posting rule promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). The Court held that the NLRB had the authority to require employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), but did not have the authority to issue a blanket rule that failure to post the required notice will be considered an unfair labor practice and did not have the authority to permit tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice charges in situations where an employer fails to post the required notice.
Although the Court determined that the NLRB exceeded its authority by promulgating a blanket rule that an employer's failure to post the required notice will in all cases constitute an unfair labor practice, the Court held that the NLRB is nevertheless free to determine on a case by case basis whether an employer's failure to post the notice interfered with employees' exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the NLRA. The Court stated that the NLRB can "make a specific finding based on the facts and circumstances in the individual case before it that the failure to post interfered with the exercise of his or her rights."
In addition, the Court also upheld the portion of the rule providing that the NLRB may consider an employer's failure to post the required notice as evidence of the employer's unlawful motive in unfair labor practice cases where motive is an issue. The Court found that the NLRB had the authority to issue this portion of the rule because the rule "does not make a blanket finding that will govern future individual adjudications or create a presumption of anti-union animus wherever an employer fails to post the provision." Therefore, although some of the NLRB's enforcement tools were struck down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, there could still be significant negative consequences to employers who fail to post the required notice.
It is not clear at this point whether the plaintiffs or the NLRB intend to appeal the Court's decision, or if an appeal will result in a delay of the effective date of the notice posting rule. Accordingly, employers should be prepared to post the required notice by the April 30, 2012 effective date.
