Amazon and SpaceX are trying to disrupt the National Labor Relations Board, asking the court to declare its procedures for upholding labor laws unconstitutional. But when the companies presented their arguments on Monday, the judges on the three-member panel appeared skeptical.
In two separate cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, both companies argued that the NLRB was unlawfully forcing them to participate in administrative law proceedings over alleged anti-labor actions. Amazon's case focuses on Is bargaining necessary with the union at its JFK 8 fulfillment center on Staten Island, while the SpaceX case involves allegations from former employees who claimed they were fired. Criticism of CEO Elon Musk,
A ruling in favor of the companies could weaken the NLRB's power to enforce protections for workers. It comes just as vocally pro-union President Joe Biden is leaving office and regulation-friendly President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Trump matters especially Musk is among his key collaborators After their massive fundraising effort. NLRB is a free agency The five board members are appointed by the President for a term of 5 years.
During oral arguments, the justices mostly briefed lawyers on the specifics of the companies' appealing decisions and the deadlines for their objections. At one point, Obama-appointed Judge James Graves Jr. expressed doubt that Amazon had even met the terms of the appeal – suggesting it should have waited for the district court's decision first. Two days after notice of Amazon's appeal, the district court denied Amazon's request for an order granting a temporary stay of the NLRB proceedings.
Both companies are trying to short-circuit NLRB proceedings by court order
Judge Priscilla Richman, appointed by George W. Bush, similarly pressed SpaceX lawyer Michael Kennelly on why the company rushed to appeal rather than letting the case proceed in a lower court. Kenneally said SpaceX waited until it felt it could present its challenge and accused the government of relying on procedural arguments it could not defend. Constitutionality of the NLRB. Graves looked skeptical. “It seems to me like the argument is that, 'Well, if I win on merit the process doesn't matter, so just skip the process,'” he said.
Both companies are trying to short-circuit the NLRB proceedings with a court order requiring them to demonstrate that it would cause them irreparable harm. But in case of Amazon, NLRB attorney Tyler Wiese called the company's deadline for the district court “imaginary” and said, “Simply moving through the administrative process does not cause irreparable harm.”
Both Amazon and SpaceX argue that the NLRB's administrative proceedings are tainted because it is unconstitutionally immune from removing its board members or administrative law judges. They point to Article II of the Constitution, which says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” which they say includes removing officials.
Amazon also says the NLRB is violating the Seventh Amendment, which protects the right to a jury trial in some civil cases. He argues that the NLRB should not be allowed to decide on financial measures related to the case because it would deny the company due process. Cox said the board itself “intervened inappropriately.” [union] election by using its prosecutorial authority,” so failing to stop the proceedings would allow the NLRB to act as judge and prosecutor.
The NLRB says it relies on a 1937 Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. “It is nothing new for large companies to challenge the NLRB's authority to enforce workers' rights by not holding them accountable for violations of the National Labor Relations Act,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a statement. Go.” “Although the current challenges require the NLRB to expend scarce resources, we have seen that these types of challenges ultimately result in justice delayed, but justice ultimately prevails.”