Public policy made simple. Dive into ourinformation hub today!

National Labor Relations Board

From Ballotpedia
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png

Read more about theadministrative state on Ballotpedia.
This article is a sprout; we plan on making it grow in the future. If you would like to help it grow, please considerdonating to Ballotpedia.



TheNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is anindependent federal agency established in 1935.[1]

Noteworthy events

U.S. Supreme Court permits President Trump's firing of NLRB member (2025 )

In a 6-3 vote on May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court granted PresidentDonald Trump (R) the power to remove members of independent executive agencies without cause. The decision was not final, and the ruling stated that it did not apply to theFederal Reserve. This decision came after President Trump fired National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox on January 27, 2025, three years before the expiration of her term, leaving the NLRB without a quorum. This was the first time that a president has ever fired a member of the NLRB. The temporary Supreme Court decision put on hold the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling to reinstate Wilcox and restore a NLRB quorum.[2][3]

NLRB rules that agency ALJs were properly appointed (2018)

The commissioners of theNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled on August 6, 2018, that the agency's ALJs were validly appointed by the agency pursuant to the Appointments Clause of theUnited States Constitution. The commissioners' unanimous vote rejected a challenge by Westrock Services Inc., a graphics printing company, that argued for the dismissal of the company's case before the NLRB on the grounds that the agency's ALJs had not been properly appointed.[4][5]

Westrock claimed that the NLRB's ALJs had not been appointed by the appropriate department head. The company argued that only the heads of cabinet-level agencies and the departments included under 5 U.S.C. § 101 constituted department heads for the purposes of the Appointments Clause. As such, Westrock argued that the NLRB commissioners did not have the authority to ratify their ALJ appointments.[4][5]

The NLRB commissioners rejected Westrock's claims and based their dismissal on theUnited States Supreme Court's decision inLucia v. SEC, which held that the ALJs of theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are inferior officers of the United States who must be appointed by the SEC commissioners, rather than hired by agency staff, in accordance with the Appointments Clause. The NLRB commissioners also citedFree Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which held that the SEC, as a “freestanding component of the Executive Branch, not subordinate to or contained within any other such component, ... constitutes a ‘Departmen[t]’ for the purposes of the Appointments Clause.” Therefore, the NLRB concluded that its commissioners, like those of the SEC, jointly function as a department head for the purposes of the Appointment Clause.[5]

Westrock had not responded to the ruling as of August 7, 2018. The company can appeal the decision in federal court.[4]

U.S. Supreme Court upholds employer arbitration agreements, declines to applyChevron deference (2018)

On Monday, May 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that arbitration agreements between employers and employees are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Supreme Court ruling reversed and remanded a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had ruled that the agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and was not enforceable under the FAA.

The case involved a dispute between Epic Systems Corporation and a group of its employees regarding an arbitration agreement for wage-and-hour claims. In writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that the case did not qualify forChevron deference—a principle of judicial review in which a federal court defers to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.Chevron did not apply, according to Gorsuch, because no ambiguity existed in the NLRA statute, which is administered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Instead, Gorsuch wrote that the NLRB had sought to "interpret [the NLRA] in a way that limits the work of the Arbitration Act, which the agency does not administer."

Gorsuch further stated that Congress had put forth clear instructions for the enforcement of arbitration agreements in the NLRA and that any effort to change the policy must come from Congress itself. He wrote, "The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written. While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA—much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act.”[6][7]

See also

External links

Footnotes

v  e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure ActAntiquities ActCivil Service Reform ActClayton Antitrust ActCommunications Act of 1934Congressional Review ActElectronic Freedom of Information ActFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938Federal Housekeeping StatuteFederal Reserve ActFederal Trade Commission Act of 1914Freedom of Information ActGovernment in the Sunshine ActIndependent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952Information Quality ActInterstate Commerce ActNational Labor Relations ActPaperwork Reduction ActPendleton ActPrivacy Act of 1974Regulatory Flexibility ActREINS ActREINS Act (Wisconsin)Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Sherman Antitrust ActSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ActTruth in Regulating ActUnfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerA.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesAssociation of Data Processing Service Organizations v. CampAuer v. RobbinsChevron v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilCitizens to Preserve Overton Park v. VolpeFederal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaField v. ClarkFood and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco CorporationHumphrey's Executor v. United StatesImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. ChadhaJ.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United StatesLucia v. SECMarshall v. Barlow'sMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection AgencyMistretta v. United StatesNational Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. SebeliusNational Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning CompanyNational Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery CorporationSkidmore v. Swift & Co.United States v. LopezUnited States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardVermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense CouncilWayman v. SouthardWeyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceWhitman v. American Trucking AssociationsWickard v. FilburnWiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state)Administrative judgeAdministrative lawAdministrative law judgeAdministrative stateArbitrary-or-capricious testAuer deferenceBarrier to entryBootleggers and BaptistsChevron deference (doctrine)Civil servantCivil serviceCode of Federal RegulationsCodify (administrative state)Comment periodCompliance costsCongressional RecordCoordination (administrative state)Deference (administrative state)Direct and indirect costs (administrative state)Enabling statuteEx parte communication (administrative state)Executive agencyFederal lawFederal RegisterFederalismFinal ruleFormal rulemakingFormalism (law)Functionalism (law)Guidance (administrative state)Hybrid rulemakingIncorporation by referenceIndependent federal agencyInformal rulemakingJoint resolution of disapproval (administrative state)Major ruleNegotiated rulemakingNondelegation doctrineOIRA prompt letterOrganic statutePragmatism (law)Precautionary principlePromulgateProposed rulePublication rulemakingRegulatory budgetRegulatory captureRegulatory dark matterRegulatory impact analysisRegulatory policy officerRegulatory reform officerRegulatory reviewRent seekingRetrospective regulatory reviewRisk assessment (administrative state)RulemakingSeparation of powersSignificant regulatory actionSkidmore deferenceStatutory authoritySubstantive law and procedural lawSue and settleSunset provisionUnified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory ActionsUnited States CodeUnited States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Ballotpedia
Editorial Content
Josh Altic, Director of ContentDaniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & DataCory Eucalitto, Associate Director of FeaturesRyan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot MeasuresMandy McConnell, Managing Editor of NewsDoug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local ExpansionAbbey Smith, Managing Editor of ElectionsJanie Valentine, Managing Editor of LawJoel Williams, Managing Editor of EventsAndrew BahlJaclyn BeranMarielle BrickerJoseph BrusgardEmma BurlingameKelly CoyleJon DunnVictoria EdwardsThomas EllisNicole FisherJoseph GreaneyThomas GrobbenBrianna HoseaMolly KehoeTyler KingGlorie MartinezNorm Leahy, Senior EditorNathan MaxwellJimmy McAllisterBrandon McCauleyEllie MikusEllen MorrisseyMackenzie MurphyKaley PlatekSamantha PostAdam PowellAnnelise ReinwaldEthan RiceSpencer RichardsonVictoria RoseBriana RyanMyj SaintylMaddy SaluckaEmma SoukupAlexis ThackerMina VogelSamuel WonacottTrenton Woodcox