Amazon and SpaceX are seeking to thwart the National Labor Relations Board, asking the court to declare its process of upholding labor laws unconstitutional. But when the companies presented their arguments on Monday, the judges on the three-judge panel seemed skeptical.
In two separate lawsuits filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the companies contended that the NLRB was unlawfully forcing them to participate in administrative law litigation over alleged anti-labor practices. Amazon’s lawsuit centers on whether union negotiations are required at the company’s JFK 8 distribution center on Staten Island, while SpaceX’s lawsuit alleges that a worker was fired for criticizing CEO Elon Musk. The lawsuit includes complaints filed by former employees.
A ruling in favor of companies could undermine the NLRB’s authority to enforce worker protections. The move comes at a time when President Joe Biden, a vocal supporter of labor unions, is leaving office and President-elect Donald Trump, who supports deregulation, is taking office. Trump counts Musk among his key allies, especially after a major fundraising drive. The NLRB is an independent agency with five board members appointed by the president for five-year terms.
During oral arguments, the justices mainly grilled lawyers on the details of the company’s appeal decision and the timeline for filing a challenge. Judge James Graves Jr., an Obama appointee, at one point expressed doubt that Amazon even met the requirements for an appeal, suggesting it should have waited for the district court’s decision first. Two days after Amazon’s notice of appeal, the district court denied Amazon’s request for a temporary restraining order against the NLRB lawsuit.
Both companies seek to shorten NLRB proceedings through court order
Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Kennelly said SpaceX waited as long as possible to file a challenge and accused the government of relying on procedural arguments because it cannot defend the NLRB’s constitutionality. Mr. Graves seemed skeptical. “That sounds to me like an argument that says, ‘If I win on the merits, the process doesn’t matter, so I can just skip the process,'” he said.
The companies are trying to shorten the NLRB process through a court order, but that would require proving irreparable harm. But in the Amazon case, NLRB Counsel Tyler Wiese called the company’s deadline for filing in district court “imaginary,” adding, “Simply pursuing administrative proceedings would not result in irreparable harm.” No,” he said.
Amazon and SpaceX both argue that the NLRB’s administrative procedures are tainted because NLRB directors and administrative law judges cannot be removed from office in violation of the Constitution. They point to Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and argue that this includes the dismissal of public officials.
Amazon also claims the NLRB violates the Seventh Amendment, which protects the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. The NLRB argues that it should not be allowed to decide on financial remedies related to this case because it would deny the companies due process. Cox said the board itself “used its prosecutorial powers to unlawfully interfere in the (union) election,” and that failure to halt the proceedings would result in the NLRB acting as judge and prosecutor.
The NLRB said it is confident in the Supreme Court’s 1937 ruling on the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. “There is nothing new in challenging the NLRB’s authority to enforce worker rights to shield large corporations from liability for violating the National Labor Relations Act,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a statement. No,” he said. “Although the current challenges require the NLRB to expend scarce resources defending against them, we see that while the outcome of these types of challenges is ultimately justice delayed, justice ultimately prevails.” It’s here.”
