Long Beach Worker Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Structure of Biden Labor Board as Unconstitutional
New lawsuit challenges that National Labor Relations Board’s structure unconstitutionally shields both board members and judges from accountability
Washington, DC (August 22, 2024) – Nelson Medina, a Long Beach, CA-based employee of transportation company Savage Services, has just filed a federal lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenging the Board’s makeup as unconstitutional. Medina, who is represented for free by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, argues that the composition of the NLRB violates separation of powers doctrines enshrined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution because it shields NLRB bureaucrats from being removed by the President.
Medina’s case now joins three other constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure from Foundation-backed rank-and-file workers, including the first ever such lawsuit which Foundation attorneys filed on behalf of Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam.
Medina’s lawsuit points to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen, which emphasized that the President should have direct authority to remove executive officials who exercise significant authority. Medina argues that the NLRB’s structure, as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), places unlawful limitations on the President’s power to oust NLRB officials even though they exercise significant executive authority.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, joins a similar suit at the same court from Medina’s colleague, Victor Avila. Both Avila’s and Medina’s lawsuits stem from unfair labor practice charges they each filed with Foundation aid against Teamsters union officials in their workplace, which dealt with illegal threats of violence against workers for not supporting the union and unlawful demands for dues payment, respectively. Both Avila and Medina argue they are entitled to have their cases heard by Board officials whose appointment complies with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Challenge to Constitutionality of Federal Labor Board Targets Board Members and Administrative Law Judges
Medina’s lawsuit is unique in that it contests the NLRB’s removal protections on both Board members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The suit argues that Board members exercise significant executive branch authority, yet are unconstitutionally protected from at-will presidential removal. ALJs, the suit argues, are subject to a removal process controlled by multiple layers of federal bureaucrats whom the President can’t remove at will, a structure prohibited by the Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB Supreme Court decision.
Board members are responsible for both creating NLRB policy and reviewing federal labor cases decided by regional NLRB offices, while ALJs conduct hearings in cases where the NLRB has chosen to prosecute a union or employer for violating the law.
Similar Lawsuits Crop Up Among Workers Nationwide
Beyond Savage Services, Foundation-backed Starbucks employees are also pursuing cases challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB. These employees have attempted to hold decertification votes to remove unwanted Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace, but NLRB officials blocked their cases based on unproven union allegations of employer meddling.
Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, recently filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their lawsuit. They are appealing a District Court judge’s ruling that they lacked standing to bring their challenge. The ruling didn’t address the core constitutional arguments their lawsuit raised. Another Starbucks employee, Reed Busler, filed another similar lawsuit that is currently pending in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
“For too long, independent-minded employees who challenge union boss coercion that violates federal law have had to pursue their claims with unaccountable NLRB bureaucrats who exercise power in violation of the Constitution,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Labor Relations Board should not be a union boss-friendly kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution, yet for too many workers, including those bringing these legal challenges, that is what the Labor Board has become.”
Texas Starbucks Employee Challenges Federal Labor Board Structure as Unconstitutional in New Federal Lawsuit
Regional NLRB blocked employee and his coworkers from voting out union, new lawsuit now second pending worker-backed challenge to agency’s authority
Fort Worth, TX (January 24, 2024) – Reed Busler, an employee at the “Military Highway” Starbucks in Shavano Park, TX, is hitting the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a federal lawsuit arguing the federal agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, argues that the agency violates Article II of the Constitution by insulating NLRB Board Members from at-will removal by the President.
Busler’s lawsuit stems from an NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal of a petition he filed on behalf of his coworkers seeking an election to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from power at the coffee shop. Busler is receiving free legal aid in both proceedings from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law that established the NLRB, restricts a president’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance. Busler’s complaint contends that these restraints violate “the fundamental separation of powers principle that the President must be free to remove executive officers at will,” as dictated by Supreme Court cases like Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021).
“Board Members are principal officers wielding substantial executive power. This includes the power to promulgate binding rules, to enforce the law through adjudicating unfair labor practice disputes and issuing remedies, to issue subpoenas, and to enforce the law through adjudicating representation proceedings,” reads the complaint. “By adjudicating Busler’s petition notwithstanding its unconstitutional structure, the Board is violating his right to have his petition adjudicated by politically accountable officials.”
Regional NLRB Trapped Workers in Union Despite Reports of Abrasive Behavior
Busler submitted his union decertification petition on November 16, 2023. The petition contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger a vote to remove the union under NLRB rules. However, the NLRB Regional Director still blocked the vote based on unfair labor practice charges SBWU union officials filed against Starbucks, despite there being no proven connection between those allegations and Busler’s decertification petition.
The NLRB’s refusal to hold a union decertification vote means that Busler and his coworkers are still trapped under the “representation” of the SBWU union, despite numerous reports of SBWU agents’ combative and abrasive behavior at the store. In other filings in the NLRB case, Busler and his colleagues reported that SBWU officials ordered a divisive strike in which “[union] supporters outside the store were loud, boisterous, and were screaming at customers” and “would sometimes yell at other employees or tell partners that if they did not support Workers United they would be personally ostracized by other partners.”
“Moreover, I believe the other employees who signed my decertification petition did not do so because they were coerced or duped by anything Starbucks allegedly did wrong, but because the Union was a divisive force in our store and has now ignored our location for several months,” Busler stated in an NLRB filing.
Lawsuit Seeks to Stop NLRB from Exercising Unconstitutional Power Over Workers’ Case
Busler’s federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional, and an injunction halting the NLRB from proceeding with his decertification case until his federal lawsuit is resolved. Busler now joins Buffalo, NY-based Starbucks worker Ariana Cortes in challenging the structure of the NLRB with free Foundation legal aid.
“The National Labor Relations Board should not be a union boss-friendly kangaroo court run by powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Mr. Busler seeks to remove a union he and his colleagues oppose, and he is entitled to pursue that statutory right before an agency whose structure complies with the Constitution.”
