National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board
846 F. Supp. 2d 34
D.D.C.2012Background
- NAM and NRTW filed separate challenges to the NLRB's Final Rule, later consolidated, alleging authority and First Amendment violations under the NLRA and APA.
- The Final Rule consists of Subpart A (mandatory notice posting) and Subpart B (enforcement, tolling, and ancillary provisions).
- Subpart A requires employers subject to the NLRA to post an employee rights notice in conspicuous places and on intranet sites; the notice includes a government seal and specific rights text.
- Subpart B provides enforcement mechanisms, including tolling the six‑month statute of limitations and deeming failure to post as potential unfair labor practice in certain contexts.
- Plaintiffs argue the Board lacked authority to issue the posting rule and to create the deemed‑unfair‑labor‑practice and tolling provisions, and that the rule violates the First Amendment; defendants defend broad rulemaking authority under §156 and the rule’s reasonableness.
- The court analyzes authority under Chevron and considers whether Subpart A is up to the Board’s mandate, with later severability and First Amendment considerations proceeding accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board authority to promulgate notice posting | Board lacks NLRA authority to require posting | Section 156 authorizes rules necessary to carry out the Act; posting aids rights | Subpart A upheld; authority found facially reasonable under Chevron step two |
| Validity of enforcement and tolling in Subpart B | 104.210 and 104.214(a) exceed NLRA authority | Statutory framework permits Board enforcement and tolling when posting is implicated | 104.210 and 104.214(a) invalid as beyond statutory authority |
| First Amendment challenge to posting rule | Rule compels speech by employers | Posting is government speech and does not compel private parties to espouse a view | No First Amendment violation; government speech; Zauderer reasoning supports posting |
| severability of Subpart A from Subpart B | If any part invalid, whole rule should fail | Subpart A can function independently; remedies in B are separable | Subpart A severable; valid standalone posting requirement; Subpart B invalidated while A remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step doctrine: if statute silent/ambiguous, agency deference for reasonable interpretation)
- American Hosp. Ass'n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (upholds broad rulemaking authority to implement NLRA provisions)
- NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956) (inapplicability of inaction as unfair labor practice under certain contexts)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 131 S. Ct. 1101 (2011) (statutory interpretation and Chevron step one guidance)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (compelled disclosures allowed if factual and not controversial and reasonably related to government interest)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech doctrine; government controls content)
- Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (compelled speech considerations in government messaging context)
- Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961) (limits on the Board's authority to unfair labor practices)