
Andrew Strom is a union lawyer based in New York City. He is also an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Although we are unlikely to hear the Presidential candidates discuss this issue, a decision issued last week by the D.C. Circuit highlights the ongoing need for labor law reform. The case, Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. NLRB, demonstrates how employers can flout the law with impunity, frustrating the efforts of workers who want to organize and bargain collectively.
All of the following facts come from the court’s decision: In 2009, workers began an organizing campaign at the employer’s warehouse facilities in Memphis, Tennessee. The employer responded to the organizing campaign with a series of unlawful acts, including threatening employees, confiscating union materials, and disciplining union supporters. A representation election took place in March 2010; the workers voted against unionization, but that the election was tainted by the employer’s unfair labor practices. The workers regrouped and voted to unionize on July 27, 2011, even though the employer continued to commit illegal acts, including firing a union supporter and issuing a final warning to another.
When the election was over, the employer refused to bargain, forcing the union to file charges with the NLRB. The refusal to bargain case was combined with the case involving the illegal firing and discipline, and, now five years later, the D.C. Circuit ruled against the employer on every issue. In other words, for the last five years, the employer has unjustifiably deprived its workers of their federally protected right to engage in collective bargaining. What are the consequences for the employer? Exactly nothing – the only remedy is a prospective bargaining order. What compensation will the workers receive for this deprivation of their rights? Again, nothing!
As we approach the Presidential election, think about the outrage if the incumbent were allowed to stay in office while we spend five years litigating the legitimacy of the election (and to further the outrage, consider if, as was the case with Ozburn-Hessey, the arguments raised to challenge the election were so frivolous that the circuit court summarily rejected them without discussion). If an employer refuses to honor the results of a union representation election, there should either be an expedited proceeding to resolve the dispute, or workers should be entitled to compensation for interference with their rights. Republicans often proclaim fealty to “the rule of law,” but the current system where an employer can make workers wait five years to vindicate their right to collective bargaining makes a mockery of the rule of law.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
May 8
Court upholds DOL farmworker protections; Fifth Circuit rejects Amazon appeal; NJTransit navigates negotiations and potential strike.
May 7
U.S. Department of Labor announces termination of mental health and child care benefits for its employees; SEIU pursues challenge of NLRB's 2020 joint employer rule in the D.C. Circuit; Columbia University lays off 180 researchers
May 6
HHS canceled a scheduled bargaining session with the FDA's largest workers union; members of 1199SEIU voted out longtime union president George Gresham in rare leadership upset.
May 5
Unemployment rates for Black women go up under Trump; NLRB argues Amazon lacks standing to challenge captive audience meeting rule; Teamsters use Wilcox's reinstatement orders to argue against injunction.
May 4
In today’s news and commentary, DOL pauses the 2024 gig worker rule, a coalition of unions, cities, and nonprofits sues to stop DOGE, and the Chicago Teachers Union reaches a remarkable deal. On May 1, the Department of Labor announced it would pause enforcement of the Biden Administration’s independent contractor classification rule. Under the January […]
May 2
Immigrant detainees win class certification; Missouri sick leave law in effect; OSHA unexpectedly continues Biden-Era Worker Heat Rule