National Labor Relations Board v. RELCO Locomotives, Inc.
734 F.3d 764
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- RELCO Locomotives terminated eight employees for alleged protected labor activity; ALJs found unlawful terminations and the NLRB adopted those findings and issued reinstatement/backpay orders; RELCO challenged the NLRB’s labor rulings and separately challenged the Board’s recess-appointments-based composition; Noel Canning (D.C. Cir. 2013) prompted a belated challenge to the Board’s quorum; the district and appellate history discussed precedents on Wright Line and concerted activity; RELCO waived its appointments-clause challenge but disputed whether extraordinary circumstances allowed review; the panel ultimately enforced the NLRB orders and declined to hear the composition challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RELCO’s terminations violated the NLRA based on protected activity | RELCO argues terminations were for legitimate reasons, not protected activity | NLRB contends terminations were motivated by anti-union animus and protected activity | Yes; Board findings supported by substantial evidence showing unlawful termination |
| Whether the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence | RELCO asserts the factual findings are flawed | NLRB argues the ALJ’s credibility determinations and evidence are substantial | Yes; Board’s findings sustained by substantial evidence across RELCO I and II |
| Whether the recess-appointments challenge to the NLRB’s quorum is jurisdictional | RELCO contendsAppointments Clause issue affects jurisdiction | NLRB and majority treat challenge as nonjurisdictional | No; challenge is waived under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and not jurisdictional |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances allow considering a belated appointments-clause challenge | RELCO argues extraordinary circumstances exist post-Noel Canning | No extraordinary circumstances; no new facts or law; review waived | No extraordinary circumstances; issue not reviewed on merits |
| Whether the Board’s composition error warrants reversal of enforcement | RELCO asserts lack of quorum invalidates Board orders | Board’s authority intact; no extraordinary circumstances; exhaustion applies | Denied; enforcement upheld because of waiver and lack of extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Rockline Indus., 412 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2005) (supports Wright Line framework and pretext analysis)
- St. Joseph’s Hospital, 337 NLRB 94 (8th Cir. 2001) (process for evaluating protected activity as motivation)
- Meyers Indus., Inc., 268 NLRB 493 (5th Cir. 1984) (defines concerted activity and scope of protection)
- New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 719 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizes distinctions on belated appointments challenges)
- Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (recess appointments and quorum issues after decision; circuit split)
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (appointments clause challenges nonjurisdictional; discretionary review)
- Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 574 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2009) (appointments clause challenges largely nonjurisdictional)
- Carroll College v. NLRB, 558 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (limitations on Agency authority under no broad exemption)
- Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (intrasession recesses; agency authority context)
- Newton-New Haven Co., 506 F.2d 1038 (2d Cir. 1974) (waiver of appointments-clause challenges under NLRA)