NLRB Abandons the Notice Posting Rule

By    January 10, 2014

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took the surprising step of dropping its efforts to defend its recent “Poster Rule” in court.

In our last post about the NLRB notice posting rule – or “Poster Rule,” which required most employers to post an 11” x 17” notice informing employees of their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to organize – we explained that the state of the rule was in flux due to a number of pending appeals.

This week, the NLRB took the surprising step of dropping its efforts to defend the rule in court.  The Board declined to appeal two decisions by the federal courts of appeal which had struck down the rule: the first, in May 2013, holding that the rule violated the First Amendment, and the second, in June 2013, holding that the Board had no authority to make the rule in the first place.

In light of this development, employers are free to remove the poster, if they wish, as the Board has declared that the poster is voluntary.  Stay tuned, however: there is little doubt the Board still wants all workers to be informed about their right to organize, and may seek to promulgate a modified version of the Poster Rule in the coming months or years.

Photo Credit:

NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule...
(Still) On Hold

By Peter Moser   June 13, 2013

Whatever happened to that controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) notice posting rule? You know the one.

The one that requires most private sector employers to post a notice advising employees of their rights to organize and join unions. The one that the business community has aggressively opposed since 2011 when the rule was first announced. The one that was supposed to go into effect on April 30, 2012.

The NLRB decided early on that the rule would not take effect “until the legal issues are resolved” and suffice to say that the legal issues are far from resolved. Click here  for more information on this decision.

In the latest development (found here), on May 7th the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit unanimously held that the rule is invalid. The Court found that the rule violates an employer’s right to free speech, a right guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. The Court also found that the NLRB’s methods of enforcing the rule were impermissible (i.e., treating a failure to post as an unfair labor practice, as evidence of anti-union animus, and as tolling the Act’s six month statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges).

This latest decision is consistent with a lower court decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, and can be found here.

If you’re keeping score, the business community is winning 2-0.

But the game is far from over.  The South Carolina decision is currently on appeal to the Fourth Circuit, and if the NLRB prevails on appeal it would set up a circuit court split ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court. Even if the NLRB loses in the 4th Circuit, the agency will likely appeal the two adverse decisions to the Supreme Court which may, or may not, take up the matter.

What does all this mean for employers?  For one thing, it means that you won’t need to post any NLRB notices for quite some time, as the legal appeal process plays out. Most non-union businesses are opting to not post the notice unless and until they are legally required to do so. It also means, reading the tea leaves, that the harsh penalties imposed by the rule will not likely survive legal scrutiny in the end.  So far,  no judge at any level has found that a failure to post the notice could constitute an unfair labor practice, or toll the 6 month statute of limitations for filing charges.

We will continue to keep you apprised of new developments.

Photo Credit:

Thank you for reaching out to contact Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP (“the Firm”). Before you send your message, we wanted to make sure you are aware of the following. Please do not send any confidential information in response to this link. Sending an e-mail to the Firm or any of its attorneys does not give rise to an attorney-client relationship, and will not be deemed to disqualify the Firm from undertaking any engagement for a current or future client. Before any attorney-client engagement may be formed, the Firm will need to check for possible conflicts of interest, you will need to consider whether you wish to retain the Firm as counsel, and we will need to consider whether we wish to accept the potential engagement. In the meantime, the Firm reserves the right to represent parties with interests adverse to you.

Accept Decline