Posts tagged Rieth-Riley Construction Co. vs. National Labor Relations Board
Michigan-Based Rieth-Riley Asphalt Worker Submits Legal Brief Urging 6th Circuit to Protect Workers’ Right to Vote Out Unpopular Union
July 28, 2025 // While Kent and his fellow employees were eventually able to exercise their right to vote on the IUOE, the NLRB in 2022 dismissed his petitions and halted the election, declining to count the already-cast ballots just hours before the vote tally, calling it a “merit-determination” dismissal. This dismissal was based on unfair labor practice allegations the IUOE filed against Rieth-Riley management in 2018. But the NLRB never held a hearing on whether those alleged practices had any connection to Kent and his coworkers’ desire to oust the union. Kent’s brief urges the Sixth Circuit to use Rieth-Riley Construction Co. as an opportunity to invalidate the NLRB’s “merit-determination” dismissal policy. The brief also asks the Court to order the NLRB to take the long-overdue step of counting the ballots in Mr. Kent’s decertification election, so he and his coworkers can properly exercise their right to vote on the union.
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit NLRB Deference Post-Loper Bright
March 28, 2025 // In declining to review the underlying Ninth Circuit decision issued on February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court let stand the court’s ruling that upheld the NLRB’s finding that an employer cannot unilaterally cease union dues checkoff after a collective bargaining agreement expires (discussed here). The Ninth Circuit’s decision was predicated on the Chevron standard, which requires deference to the Board’s interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the NLRA – like dues checkoff – if the Board’s interpretation “is rational and consistent with the Act.” The Supreme Court gave no rationale for declining review. Interestingly, this denial of certiorari stands in stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s decision in December 2024 to vacate and remand a D.C. Circuit opinion that upheld a Board ruling on the successor-bar doctrine, where the high court gave specific instructions to review that ruling “for further consideration in light of” Loper Bright, which we covered here.