The Court declined the opportunity to weigh in on whether courts must independently interpret agency precedents announced through adjudication, denying review of a petition that argued the NLRB had effectively rewritten one of its own labor-law rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a petition in Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. NLRB, wherein the employer argued that the Sixth Circuit had improperly allowed the National Labor Relations Board to reinterpret one of its own longstanding precedents without independently analyzing what that precedent actually says.
Below, the Sixth Circuit held that the NLRB was entitled to enforcement of a bargaining order against the construction company, which the agency found had committed numerous unfair labor practices, including a weeks-long employee lockout, in the course of a long-running dispute with a union that had withdrawn from a multiemployer bargaining arrangement with the company. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the union had timely withdrawn from the multiemployer unit, and the employer had, in turn, unlawfully insisted on multiemployer bargaining, increased wages for bargaining-unit employees, and locked out members of the unit. Rieth-Riley, it found, had additionally unlawfully clawed back fringe-benefit contributions from unit employees and unlawfully increased their wages without bargaining with the union.
Rewrote the rule, says employer. According to the employer’s petition, the dispute centers on the NLRB's...
By Alice Lee and Madeline Roache Kremlin propagandist John Mark Dougan, a former Florida deputy sheriff who fled to Moscow in 2016, appeared disillusioned with his position within the Russian influ...