Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. National Labor Relations Board
879 F. Supp. 2d 18
D.D.C.2012Background
- DC District Court holds final NLRB rule invalid for lack of quorum because Member Hayes did not participate in the December 16, 2011 vote to adopt the rule.
- Three-member NLRA Board requires quorum of three to act; Hayes did not vote on December 16, 2011, and no other member satisfied participation requirements.
- Final Rule published December 22, 2011; Pearce and Becker voted in favor, Hayes did not participate; rule circulated via JCMS and email before publication.
- Court treats December 16, 2011 as the relevant final agency action, not the earlier December 15 procedural Order or November 30 resolution.
- Court distinguishes mere presence or office-holding from actual participation; the quorum requires actual participation by the required number of members.
- Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denies NLRB’s motion; rule set aside for lack of quorum and does not address other challenges against the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 16, 2011 vote to adopt the final rule satisfied the NLRA quorum requirement. | Chamber argues Hayes did not participate; two members voting is insufficient. | NLRB contends Hayes’ prior participation in related actions suffices to satisfy quorum. | Quorum not satisfied; final rule invalid for lack of participation by required three members. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (U.S. 2010) (reaffirms that three members must participate for valid action and that mere presence is insufficient)
- United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1892) (presence alone may not suffice without active participation; abstentions counted for presence but not always to form quorum)
- Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 379 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (recognizes notation voting and electronic participation concepts in quorum contexts)
- Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125 (Supreme Court 1939) (non-final orders affect rights contingently; final action necessary for agency action)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1988) (agency power is limited to authority delegated by Congress; final rule must have proper quorum)