International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 v. National Labor Relations Board, 837 F.3d 593

NLRB found the International Union of Operating Engineers violated the NLRA; the Union petitioned for review and the Board cross‑petitioned.
Six "charging parties" (winners before the Board) sought to intervene to defend the Board’s judgment; five timely moved, but counsel omitted one winner, Hunt Construction, from early motions.
Hunt filed a motion to intervene more than 30 days after the Union’s petition but within 30 days of the Board’s cross‑petition; no party opposed Hunt’s late intervention.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(d) requires filing a motion to intervene within 30 days after the petition for review unless otherwise provided by statute.
The court considered whether Rule 15(d)’s 30‑day deadline is jurisdictional (foreclosing late intervention) or a claim‑processing rule (subject to waiver/equitable exceptions).
The court concluded the 30‑day deadline in Rule 15(d) is a claim‑processing rule, not jurisdictional, and therefore excused Hunt’s late intervention; the amended motions to intervene were granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 15(d)’s 30‑day filing deadline is jurisdictional	Rule 15(d) deadline bars late intervention and is mandatory	Deadline is non‑jurisdictional; courts may excuse it as a claim‑processing rule	Held: Rule 15(d) is a claim‑processing rule, not jurisdictional
Whether the court may permit Hunt Construction to intervene after the 30‑day window	Hunt (via counsel) argued omission was inadvertent and no parties would be prejudiced	Opposing parties argued procedural rule should be enforced (no opposition to Hunt though)	Held: Court permitted Hunt to intervene because no prejudice and deadline is waivable
Whether any statute makes the 30‑day deadline jurisdictional in NLRA appeals	Plaintiff pointed to rule text and importance of timeliness for orderly review	Court noted NLRA is silent on intervention timing and points to Rules Enabling Act delegation to adopt appellate rules	Held: No NLRA or statute makes the 30‑day deadline jurisdictional; Rule 15(d) stems from appellate rules and is claim‑processing

Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., AFL‑CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205 (1965) (addressing intervention in NLRB review proceedings)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (distinguishing truly jurisdictional filing deadlines)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (urging narrow use of the term "jurisdictional")
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (clarifying distinction between jurisdictional rules and claim‑processing rules)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (holding certain filing deadlines are non‑jurisdictional)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (treating a statutory deadline as non‑jurisdictional)
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (treating a filing deadline as subject to equitable exceptions)