Cablevision Questions Authority of NLRB to Pursue Labor Complaints
Cablevision used a court ruling from January to attempt to undermine the authority of the National Labor Relations Board and complaints to the NLRB from its New York workers. The cable company sought a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for a stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stop the NLRB from pursuing labor relations cases that it called “baseless,” in a news release Thursday (http://yhoo.it/13qsS4K). A former chairman of the board said the court ruling that led to Cablevision’s writ of mandamus was unprecedented, and the union that’s organized opposition to the company criticized the request.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The complaints come from Cablevision workers in Brooklyn and the Bronx, who have raised concerns about the company various times throughout the last several months. Cablevision sued New York union workers for defamation in December (CD Dec 28 p6), in a dispute in part over how fast the cable operator’s broadband service was in parts of Brooklyn. In January, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the NLRB’s recess appointments by President Barack Obama were invalid, which has created much uncertainty about whether the board’s members have authority to take formal actions. The board has a valid quorum, a spokesman responded.
"Two different federal courts of appeals -- the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit -- have ruled that the NLRB lacks a valid quorum and thus has no authority to take action,” said Cablevision in a statement. “Yet the NLRB is ignoring these rulings, and continues to prosecute various unfair labor practice charges against Cablevision -- charges that are baseless but will nonetheless require that the Company -- not to mention the taxpayers -- devote overwhelming amounts of time and money to participate in a lengthy, pointless trial. We are calling on the D.C. Circuit to instruct the NLRB that it is not free to ignore federal court rulings and to halt the NLRB’s prosecution of Cablevision.” NLRB’s regional directors of regions 2 and 29, where the complaints originated, failed to receive valid appointments because the NLRB lacked a proper quorum of Senate-appointed members then, Cablevision added.
The NLRB has recently charged Cablevision with “several unfair-labor-practice charges,” said Cablevision’s court document. Unionized workers have alleged that Cablevision has been “discouraging non-covered employees in the Bronx and elsewhere from selecting the Union as their bargaining representative” and “engaging in ’surface bargaining’ and other acts that interfered with covered employee’s exercise of rights,” the request said.
The court rulings questioning NLRB authority are “completely unprecedented ... contrary to a century and a half of understanding” in how federal government operates, William Gould told us. Gould is a Stanford labor and law professor and was chairman of the NLRB from 1994 to 1998. He said political tensions about the board have “ratcheted up, step by step,” and the D.C. Circuit ruling on the NLRB from January introduced a “new and more profound dimension” to the mix. Gould wrote Labored Relations: Law, Politics and the NLRB, which showcases these dynamics surrounding Washington stakeholders “deeply hostile” to the board, he said.
"They smell blood in the water,” Gould said of Cablevision. The Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the board’s role, he said. Until then, “it makes the National Labor Relations Act a dead letter,” he said. Cablevision is the first entity he knows of to challenge the NLRB’s authority using this ruling, but any good lawyer whose client has a case before the NLRB will pursue that avenue while it’s there, he said.
The NLRB continues to function and believes it has a valid quorum, a board spokesman told us. The NLRB has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the situation, he said. Cablevision’s request is far from the first challenge the board has received since the court decision earlier this year, he said. The board declined comment on this particular filing, the spokesman said.
The Communications Workers of America criticized the Cablevision petition. “Rather than trying to make their case against charges of anti-union behavior before a neutral law judge, Cablevision has now resorted to trying to undermine the authority of the federal agency which reviewed the evidence and issued the charges,” said Bob Master, political and legislative director for CWA’s first district, in a statement. “Just more of the same from a company that seems to think that the law doesn’t apply to them, and leaves workers and customers behind.” Thursday, saying the NLRB’s future is “in jeopardy,” CWA began a campaign to highlight how the board has helped protect free speech in the workplace, said a blog post that day (http://bit.ly/11HDvD1).