Posts tagged administrative law judge
Netflix Spy Kids Production Driver Demands Review From Federal Labor Board in Case Challenging Teamsters Discrimination
June 9, 2025 // Norris’ filing attacks Teamsters Local 657 union bosses’ “hiring hall” arrangement, in which they refer production drivers for jobs based on various “lists” that divide employees up by, among other things, member vs. nonmember status. Norris contends that prioritizing the hiring of union members over nonmembers is a form of discrimination that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids. Evidence presented during trial showed that, using this arrangement, it was virtually impossible for a nonmember to he hired for a driver job before a member.
Amazon faces legal complaint for refusing to negotiate with unionized S.F. workers
April 24, 2025 // A hearing is scheduled for August before an administrative law judge. If the judge rules against Amazon, the company could be ordered to begin negotiations — a move that may influence similar union efforts at warehouses in New York, Atlanta, Chicago and Southern California. The San Francisco workers were part of a national strike last December, calling for higher wages, improved safety and official union recognition.
ALJ Backs Hospital’s Right to Delay Returning Strikers to Work
April 23, 2025 // An NLRB administrative law judge recently confirmed that a California hospital system had the right to keep replacement workers on the job for the duration of its contractual commitment to a staffing agency even though striking employees were ready to return to work. The case, In re Sutter Valley Hospitals,1 clarifies the legality of arrangements that healthcare employers commonly make after receiving a union strike notice to ensure continued patient care.
NLRB’s in-house tribunal undermines fairness and rule of law
February 25, 2025 // Nick felt he’d followed proper procedure and compiled thorough evidence to support his case. But none of it mattered. The NLRB doesn’t have to prosecute its allegations in a proper court of law. In fact, it doesn’t even have to go beyond its own walls. The agency’s general counsel filed the case in-house, applied the NLRB’s own rules (that toss aside standard rules of evidence), and held a hearing in front of an NLRB-employed administrative law judge (ALJ) at the NLRB’s offices. Any appeal of the ALJ’s decision goes to the NLRB itself. Unsurprisingly, the ALJ in Nick’s case ruled against the restaurant and ordered it to rehire the eight employees with backpay. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision, including her order to Hiran Management to compensate the employees for any “foreseeable” harm that purportedly resulted from the terminations. These so-called “compensatory damages” are not authorized under the National Labor Relations Act. But the NLRB “discovered” this authority in December 2022—90 years after the labor act was adopted.
Apple accused by US labor board of imposing illegal workplace rules
October 1, 2024 // The National Labor Relations Board in the complaint announced late on Monday claims Apple required employees nationwide to sign illegal confidentiality, non-disclosure, and non-compete agreements and imposed overly broad misconduct and social media policies.
NLRB changes course on consent orders … again
September 11, 2024 // The NLRB refused to return to the Postal Service standard, and it refused to reaffirm UPMC. Instead, the NLRB held that it “should instead entirely end the practice of approving consent orders.” According to the NLRB, it doesn’t matter if the consent order provides a full remedy or partial remedy; the NLRB will no longer accept consent orders. The NLRB relied heavily on Section 102.35(a)(7) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, which states that ALJs may “[h]old conferences for the settlement or simplification of issues by consent of the parties, but not to adjust cases.” According to the Board, a case is “adjust[ed]” if it is resolved short of final adjudication on the merits. A consent order is not a settlement because not all parties agree to its terms, so it must be an improper adjustment of the case, so reasons the NLRB.
Long Beach Worker Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Structure of Biden Labor Board as Unconstitutional
August 23, 2024 // Nelson Medina, a Long Beach, CA-based employee of transportation company Savage Services, has just filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging the Board’s makeup as unconstitutional. Medina, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, argues that the composition of the NLRB violates separation of powers doctrines enshrined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution because it shields NLRB bureaucrats from being removed by the President.
Texas Judge Enjoins NLRB From Proceeding Against SpaceX, Casting Further Doubt on NLRB’s Constitutionality
July 31, 2024 // If the lawsuits ultimately succeed and the NLRB is dismantled in whole or in part, we may see a dramatic transformation of the way union organizing, elections, and worker and union disputes are decided under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). We will continue to monitor developments in these cases, as well as the expected wave of challenges to the NLRB’s rules and positions.
NLRB Judge Rules Against Amazon CEO’s Comments
May 3, 2024 // The problem with the ALJ’s mind-bendingly distorted reasoning is type of speech Jassy used is specifically protected by the NLRA, which states: “The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” And Jassy’s statements did not include threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Moreover, try as the NLRB might to make their legal gymnastics seem legitimate, there’s also the matter of the First Amendment. What’s really going on here is that the NLRB’s General Counsel and the ALJ simply don’t like that Amazon’s CEO offered his opinion about unionizing, which is his right whether they like it or not.
Op-ed: Diversity, equity, and exclusion: How the NLRB’s double standard on job-related speech hurts workers
March 22, 2024 // The NLRB in 2020 required Amazon to reinstate a male worker who had used a bullhorn to call a female colleague a “gutter bitch” and “crack ho,” among other misogynistic insults. The bullhorn-wielding worker had been engaged in a one-man union protest when the female co-worker told him to quiet down. The union activist replied with a string of insults that would be clear proof of a hostile workplace under any other circumstances. The NLRB nevertheless sided with the union activist, as it usually has in such situations. The board has long believed that allowances must be made for heated rhetoric when workers are engaged union-related activities. So, you cannot question a workplace diversity policy publicly at work and you cannot criticize the policy outside of work in the private-yet-public world of social media. Either one can get you fired for creating a hostile work environment. But a male worker can be openly hostile and insulting to female co-workers if the man is affiliated with a union.