Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Noel Canning: Congress Enters the NLRB Fray

By Howard M. Bloom on April 24, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The NLRB’s petition to the United States Supreme Court for review of Noel Canning is due April 25. The Supreme Court will be the most important battleground for resolution of the question whether President Barack Obama’s recess appointments of NLRB Members Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and former-Member Terence F. Flynn were constitutional.

Even after the petition for review is filed, other skirmishes over the appointments will continue. A number of them are being fought now. For instance, in a case involving Laboratory Corporation of America, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia  recently transferred a Noel Canning dispute to the federal District Court in New Jersey based on a request by the NLRB. See Noel Canning Update: NLRB Fights Back. Now, Congress has entered the fray as a bill prohibiting the NLRB from acting at this time makes its way from the U.S. House of Representatives to the Senate.

The House passed H.R.1120, the “Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act,” by a 219-209 vote. The bill states, “The Board shall not appoint any personnel, nor implement, administer, or enforce any decision, rule, vote, or other action decided, undertaken, adopted, issued, or finalized on or after January 4, 2012, that requires a quorum of the members of the Board. ” These prohibitions would cease when one of three circumstances exists: (1) the NLRB has a quorum consisting of Senate-confirmed members; (2) the Supreme Court issues a decision on the validity of the disputed recess appointments; or (3) a sine die adjournment (an adjournment without another date or time to meet having been set) of the first session of the 113th Congress. (The sine die adjournment of the first session of the 113th Congress would mark the end of the recess appointments of Members Block and Griffin.) Except where the prohibitions terminate because of a Supreme Court decision, the bill also would require a Senate-confirmed quorum of the Board to act upon any of the decisions the Board made when the recess appointments were in question before those decisions may be enforced.

The bill is largely symbolic – another example of Republicans’ disdain for the current NLRB and how the White House has handled the Board nomination process. It is not expected to pass the Senate, and, in the unlikely event it does, President Obama has made it clear he will veto it.

The battle rages on.

Photo of Howard M. Bloom Howard M. Bloom
Read more about Howard M. BloomEmail
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor & Collective Bargaining
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo