OnLabor

Law. Workers. Organizing.

Challenging the NLRB

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: SpaceX Tries Its Luck Again

John Fry

John Fry is a student at Harvard Law School.

SpaceX has filed a second lawsuit in Texas challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board, after its first suit was transferred from Texas to California last month. The new complaint rehashes two arguments that SpaceX made in its initial suit: that the NLRB’s members and the agency’s administrative law judges are impermissibly shielded from removal by the President.

The new suit is likely a second attempt to have these constitutional claims heard in the Fifth Circuit, which is under increasing scrutiny for its zeal in curtailing federal agencies’ power. SpaceX’s first suit was transferred to California because the underlying unfair labor practice proceedings had a weak connection to the state of Texas, leading a judge in the Southern District of Texas to conclude that venue in Texas was improper. SpaceX’s new suit seeks to halt ongoing ULP proceedings in which the NLRB is challenging the company’s severance agreements and forced arbitration clauses. While these ULP charges were issued in Seattle, the challenged contractual terms apply to SpaceX employees across the country, leading the company to argue that Texas is an appropriate forum for its new suit. Labor law experts will continue to watch both SpaceX suits closely.

More in Challenging The NLRB

Browse all

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: Fifth Circuit Finds NLRB Removal Protections Unconstitutional

Daily News & Commentary

Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all

OnLabor In The News

Browse all

More From OnLabor

See more

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: Fifth Circuit Finds NLRB Removal Protections Unconstitutional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that removal protections for NLRB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and Board Members are unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed district court injunctions that halted unfair labor practice proceedings against three companies: SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Findhelp. The Fifth Circuit held that being subject to an unconstitutional […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 3)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California denied pretrial detainees’ state minimum wage claim, reasoning that section 4019.3 of the state’s Penal Code — capping jail laborers’ wages at two dollars per day — instead governed.  The first part of this three-part series discussed the California Supreme Court’s holding and reasoning.  The second part gave a history of California’s constitution and jail labor in the state, concluding that the two-dollar daily wage cap could not have applied to plaintiffs, who were pretrial detainees performing unpaid labor for a corporation.  

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 2)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California held that pretrial detainees forced to labor for a corporation are ineligible for a minimum wage under the state’s Labor Code.  The court construed Penal Code section 4019.3 broadly, interpreting it as incompatible with California’s Labor Code. The court concluded that the Penal Code prevents pretrial detainees from earning more than two dollars per day for their labor, absent a local ordinance.  

How Three Simple Labor Laws Helped Unions Organize Amazon and UBER in Canada

In early July,  the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) certified UFCW-Canada as the bargaining representative for over 500 UBER drivers in the province’s capital city of Victoria.  A few days later, the BCLRB issued another decision that certified the union Unifor (formerly the Canadian Auto Workers) for a bargaining unit of hundreds of employees employed at an Amazon distribution centre […]

Enjoy OnLabor’s fresh takes on the day’s labor news, right in your inbox.

Sections

Connect