nlrb poster rule smacked by 4th circuit

7/28/2019 NLRB Poster Rule Smacked By 4th Circuit

1/36

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 12-1757

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNI TED STATES; SOUTH CAROLI NACHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Pl ai nt i f f s Appel l ees,

v.

NATI ONAL LABOR RELATI ONS BOARD; MARK PEARCE, i n hi s of f i ci alcapaci t y as Chai r man of t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d;BRI AN HAYES, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as member of t heNat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d; LAFE SOLOMON, i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y as Gener al Counsel ; RI CHARD F. GRI FFI N,J R. , Member ; TERENCE F. FLYNN, Member ; SHARON BLOCK, Member ,

Def endant s Appel l ant s,

and

CRAI G BECKER, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as member of t he

Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d,

Def endant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CHARLES J . MORRI S; AMERI CAN FEDERATI ON OF LABOR AND CONGRESSOF I NDUSTRI AL ORGANI ZATI ONS; CHANGE TO WI N; NATI ONALEMPLOYMENT LAWPROJ ECT,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant s,

THE HONORABLE J OHN KLI NE, Chai r man, Commi t t ee on Educat i onand the Wor kf or ce, Uni t ed St at es House of Repr esent at i ves;J OE WI LSON; RODNEY ALEXANDER; STEVE PEARCE; GREGG HARPER;PHI L ROE; GLENN THOMPSON; TI M WALBERG; LOU BARLETTA; LARRYBUCSHON; SCOTT DESJ ARLAI S; TREY GOWDY; J OE HECK; BI LLHUI ZENGA; MI KE KELLY; J AMES LANKFORD; KRI STI NOEM; ALAN

Appeal: 12-1757 Doc: 52 Filed: 06/14/2013 Pg: 1 of 36


2/36

2

NUNNELEE; REI D RI BBLE; TODD ROKI TA; AND DANI EL WEBSTER,Uni t ed St at es Repr esent at i ves,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ees.

Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct ofSout h Car ol i na, at Char l est on. Davi d C. Nor t on, Di st r i ct J udge.( 2: 11- cv- 02516- DCN)

Ar gued: March 19, 2013 Deci ded: J une 14, 2013

Bef or e DUNCAN, FLOYD and THACKER, Ci r cui t J udges.

Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Duncan wr ote t he opi ni on,i n whi ch J udge Fl oyd and J udge Thacker j oi ned.

ARGUED: Dawn L. Gol dst ei n, NATI ONAL LABOR RELATI ONS BOARD,Washi ngt on, DC. , f or Appel l ant s. Lemuel Gr ay Geddi e, J r . ,OGLETREE, DEAKI NS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Gr eenvi l l e, Sout hCar ol i na, f or Appel l ees. ON BRIEF: Laf e E. Sol omon, Act i ngGener al Counsel , Cel est e J . Mat t i na, Deput y Gener al Counsel ,J ohn H. Fer guson, Associ at e Gener al Counsel , Mar gery E. Li eber ,

Deput y Associ at e Gener al Counsel , Er i c G. Moskowi t z, Assi st antGeneral Counsel , Abby Pr opi s Si mms, Deput y Ass i st ant GeneralCounsel , J oel F. Di l l ar d, Kevi n P. Fl anagan, Mi cah P. S. J ost ,NATI ONAL LABOR RELATI ONS BOARD, Washi ngt on, DC. , f or Appel l ant s.Benj ami n P. Gl ass, OGLETREE, DEAKI NS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC,Char l est on, Sout h Car ol i na, Cher yl M. St ant on, OGLETREE,DEAKI NS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, New Yor k, New Yor k, f orAppel l ees; Robi n S. Conr ad, Shane B. Kawka, Rachel L. Br and,NATI ONAL CHAMBER LI TI GATI ON CENTER, I NC. , Washi ngt on, D. C. ,Howard M. Radzel y, J onathan C. Fr i t t s, Davi d M. Kerr , MORGAN,LEWI S & BOCKI US LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Appel l ee Chamber of

Commer ce of t he Uni t ed St at es. Char l es J . Mor r i s, Pr of essorEmer i t us of Law, Dedman School of Law, SOUTHERN METHODI STUNI VERSI TY, San Di ego, Cal i f or ni a, f or Char l es J . Mor r i s, Ami cusSuppor t i ng Appel l ant s. Lynn Rhi nehar t , AMERI CAN FEDERATI ON OFLABOR & CONGRESS OF I NDUSTRI AL ORGANI ZATI ONS, Washi ngt on, D. C. ,f or Amer i can Feder at i on Of Labor And Congr ess Of I ndust r i alOr gani zat i ons, Ami cus Suppor t i ng Appel l ant s; Wal t er Kami at ,Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Change t o Wi n, Ami cus Support i ng



3/36

3

Appel l ant s; Cat her i ne K. Ruckel shaus, Tsedeye Gebr esel assi e,NATI ONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJ ECT, New York, New York, f orNat i onal Empl oyment Law Proj ect , Ami cus Support i ng Appel l ant s;Edgar N. J ames, J ef f Vockrodt , J AMES & HOFFMAN, PC, Washi ngt on,D. C. , f or Ami ci Cur i ae Suppor t i ng Appel l ant s. Char l es I . Cohen,

Davi d R. Br oder dor f , MORGAN, LEWI S & BOCKI US LLP, Washi ngt on,D. C. ; J oshua W. Di xon, K&L GATES LLP, Char l est on, Sout hCar ol i na; Phi l i p A. Mi sci mar r a, Ross H. Fri edman, Ri t aSr i vast ava, MORGAN, LEWI S & BOCKI US LLP, Chi cago, I l l i noi s;Andr i et t e A. Rober t s, MORGAN, LEWI S & BOCKI US LLP, New York, NewYork, f or Ami ci Cur i ae Suppor t i ng Appel l ees.



4/36

4

DUNCAN, Ci r cui t J udge:

The Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Board ( t he NLRB or t he

Boar d) , af t er not i ce and comment , pr omul gated a r ul e t hat

woul d requi r e empl oyer s subj ect t o t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons

Act ( t he NLRA or t he Act ) , 29 U. S. C. 151- 169, t o post an

of f i ci al Boar d not i ce i nf or mi ng empl oyees of t hei r r i ght s under

t he Act . Any empl oyer f ai l i ng t o post t he not i ce woul d be

subj ect t o: ( 1) a f i ndi ng t hat i t commi t t ed an unf ai r l abor

pr acti ce; ( 2) a t ol l i ng of st at ut es of l i mi t at i on f or char ges of

any ot her unf ai r l abor pr act i ces; and ( 3) a f i ndi ng of ant i -

uni on ani mus t hat woul d wei gh agai nst i t i n any pr oceedi ngs

bef or e t he Boar d. Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he

Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76 Fed. Reg. 54, 006 ( Aug. 30,

2011) ( codi f i ed at 29 C. F. R. pt . 104) .

The Chamber of Commer ce of t he Uni t ed Stat es and t he South

Carol i na Chamber of Commerce ( col l ect i vel y, t he Chamber)

sought f i nal r evi ew of t he r ul e. The di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned

t hat i n pr omul gat i ng t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e, t he Boar d exceeded

i t s aut hor i t y, i n vi ol at i on of t he Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act

( t he APA) . Looki ng t o t he pl ai n l anguage of t he NLRA, i t s

st r uctur e, i t s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, and t he not i ce pr ovi si ons i n

ot her st at ut es, t he cour t concl uded t hat t he Act does not

pr ovi de t he Boar d wi t h t he power t o enact such a r ul e. The

court t her ef ore gr ant ed summary j udgment t o t he Chamber .



5/36

5

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he r ul emaki ng

f unct i on pr ovi ded f or i n t he NLRA, by i t s expr ess t er ms, onl y

empower s t he Boar d t o car r y out i t s st at ut or i l y def i ned r eact i ve

r ol es i n addr essi ng unf ai r l abor pr act i ce char ges and conduct i ng

r epr esent at i on el ect i ons upon r equest . I ndeed, t her e i s no

f unct i on or r esponsi bi l i t y of t he Boar d not pr edi cat ed upon t he

f i l i ng of an unf ai r l abor pr act i ce char ge or a r epr esent at i on

pet i t i on. We f ur t her not e t hat Congr ess, despi t e havi ng enact ed

and amended t he NLRA at t he same t i me i t was enabl i ng si st er

agenci es t o pr omul gat e not i ce r equi r ement s, never gr ant ed t he

Boar d t he st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o do so. We t her ef or e hol d t hat

t he Boar d exceeded i t s aut hor i t y i n pr omul gat i ng t he chal l enged

r ul e, and af f i r m.

I .

Af t er di scussi ng t he st r uct ur e and pur pose of t he NLRA, we

descr i be t he backgr ound of t he chal l enged r ul e. We t hen br i ef l y

r ecount t he pr ocedur al hi st or y of t hi s case.

A.

1.

The NLRA gover ns r el at i ons bet ween pr i vat e sect or

empl oyers, l abor uni ons, and empl oyees. Congr ess enacted t he

NLRA- - or i gi nal l y r ef er r ed t o as t he Wagner Act , af t er i t s

sponsor , Senat or Rober t F. Wagner - - i n 1935. Pub. L. No. 74- 198,



6/36

6

49 St at . 449 ( 1935) . The Act has si nce been amended t hr ee

t i mes, most r ecent l y i n 1974. See Labor Management Rel at i ons

Act ( Taf t - Har t l ey Act ) , Pub. L. No. 80- 101, 61 St at . 136

( 1947) ; Labor Management Repor t i ng and Di scl osure Act ( Landr um-

Gr i f f i n Act ) , Pub. L. No. 86- 257, 73 St at . 519 ( 1959) ; Heal t h

Care Amendment s, Pub. L. No. 93- 360, 88 St at . 395 ( 1974) .

The f i r st sect i on of t he Act l ays out t he nat i onal l abor

pol i cy, whi ch t he Boar d i s i nt ended t o pr omot e by encour agi ng

t he pr act i ce and pr ocedur e of col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng and by

pr ot ect i ng t he exer ci se by wor ker s of f ul l f r eedom of

associ at i on, sel f - or gani zat i on, and desi gnat i on of

r epr esent at i ves of t hei r own choosi ng, f or t he pur pose of

negot i at i ng t he t er ms and condi t i ons of t hei r empl oyment or

ot her mut ual ai d or pr ot ect i on. 29 U. S. C. 151. Sect i on 2

pr ovi des def i ni t i ons, and Sect i ons 3, 4, and 5 est abl i sh t he

Boar d and l ay out i t s st r uct ur e. 1

1 Al t hough t he st r uct ur e of t he Boar d i s not at i ssue i nt hi s case, i t bear s not i ng t hat t he Secret ar y of Labor at t het i me of t he NLRA s passage expr essed concer n t hat whi l e t he NLRB

was t o be j udi ci al i n char act er , t he di sconcer t i ng t asks ofadmi ni st r at i on mi ght make i t subj ect t o di st r act i on f r omspeci f i c cases by t he t empt at i on t o st r engt hen i t s pr est i get hr ough educat i onal and admi ni st r at i ve act i vi t i es. H. R. Rep.No. 74- 969 ( 1935) , r epr i nt ed i n 2 NLRB, Legi sl at i ve Hi st or y oft he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 1935, at 2919 ( 1949) ( NLRALeg. Hi st. ) .



7/36

7

Sect i on 6- - t he f ocus of t hi s case- - conf er s r ul emaki ng power

on t he Boar d, pr ovi di ng i t wi t h t he aut hor i t y f r om t i me t o t i me

t o make, amend, and resci nd, i n the manner pr escr i bed by [ t he

APA] , such r ul es and r egul at i ons as may be necessar y t o car r y

out t he pr ovi si ons of [ t he NLRA] . I d. 156. Sect i on 7 l i st s

empl oyees cor e l abor r i ght s, i ncl udi ng t he r i ght s t o or gani ze,

j oi n uni ons, bar gai n col l ect i vel y t hrough r epr esent at i ves of

t hei r choosi ng, and engage i n concer t ed act i vi t i es f or

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng or mut ual ai d and pr ot ect i on. Sect i on 8

l ays out f i ve speci f i c unf ai r l abor pr act i ces ( ULPs) . Of

par t i cul ar si gni f i cance t o t hi s case, Sect i on 8( a) ( 1) makes i t a

ULP t o i nt er f er e wi t h, r est r ai n, or coer ce empl oyees i n t he

exer ci se of t he r i ght s guar ant eed i n [ Sect i on 7] . I d.

158( a) ( 1) . Sect i on 8( c) pr ovi des t hat t he expr essi on of vi ews

i n any f or m shal l not const i t ut e or be evi dence of [ a ULP] . .

. , i f such expr essi on cont ai ns no t hr eat of r epr i sal or f or ce or

pr omi se of benef i t . I d. 158( c) .

The cor e, speci f i ed f unct i ons of t he NLRB ar e ( 1) t o

conduct r epr esent at i on el ect i ons, and ( 2) t o pr event and r esol ve

ULPs. Sect i on 9 of t he NLRA pr ovi des f or t he f i r st of t hese,

aut hor i zi ng t he f i l i ng of r epr esent at i on pet i t i ons, i n whi ch a

pet i t i oner al l eges t hat a subst ant i al number of empl oyees wi sh

t o be r epr esent ed by a uni on f or col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng. Under

t hat sect i on, t he Boar d has t he aut hor i t y t o i nvest i gat e



8/36

8

quest i ons of r epr esent at i on, hol d secret - bal l ot el ect i ons, and

cer t i f y t he r esul t s t her eof . Sect i on 10 pr ovi des t he Boar d wi t h

t he aut hor i t y t o i nvest i gat e, pr event , and r emedy ULPs. Al l

pr oceedi ngs under Sect i ons 9 and 10 or i gi nat e wi t h t he f i l i ng

of char ges or pet i t i ons by empl oyees, l abor uni ons, pr i vat e

empl oyer s, and ot her pr i vat e par t i es. NLRB, 2011 FY

Per f or mance and Account abi l i t y Repor t 12, avai l abl e at

ht t p: / / www. nl r b. gov/ si t es/ def aul t / f i l es/ document s/ 189/ nl r b_2011_

par _508. pdf ( l ast vi si t ed May 31, 2013) ; see al so Not i f i cat i on

of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76

Fed. Reg. at 54, 010 ( I n bot h i nst ances, t he i ni t i at i ng document

i s f i l ed by a pr i vat e par t y. ) . Thus, [ a] l t hough t he Boar d i s

speci f i cal l y empower ed t o pr event unf ai r l abor pr act i ces, t he

Boar d may not act unt i l an unf ai r l abor pr act i ce char ge i s f i l ed

al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of t he Act . I n addi t i on, cer t i f i cat i on

pr ocedur es ar e set i n mot i on wi t h t he f i l i ng of a

r epr esent at i on pet i t i on. Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s

Under t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76 Fed. Reg. at 54, 010

( quot i ng 2 The Devel opi ng Labor Law 2662, 2683 ( J ohn E. Hi ggi ns,

J r . ed. , 5th ed. 2006) ) ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . 2

2 As we di scuss i n compar i ng t he NLRA t o ot her f ederal l aborl egi sl at i on, t he NLRB s r eact i ve mandat e st ands i n st ar kcont r ast t o t he pr oact i ve r ol es of ot her l abor agenci es t hathave pr omul gated not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement s. Whi l e t he NLRAonl y pr ovi des f or pr ocesses t hat may be i ni t i at ed by thi r d

( Cont i nued)



9/36

9

The f i nal provi si on r el evant t o t hi s case, Sect i on 11,

gi ves t he Boar d i nvest i gat or y power s necessary and pr oper f or

t he exer ci se of t he power s vest ed i n [ t he Boar d] by Sect i ons 9

and 10, i ncl udi ng t he r i ght t o i ssue subpoenas. 29 U. S. C 161.

Because of t he r eact i ve nat ur e of t he Boar d s f unct i ons under

Sect i ons 9 and 10, Sect i on 11 pr ovi des i t wi t h no r ovi ng

i nvest i gat or y power s. Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under

t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76 Fed. Reg. at 54, 010; see

al so H. R. Rep. No. 74- 969 ( 1935) , r epr i nt ed i n 2 NLRA Leg. Hi st .

at 2932.

2.

The Board promul gat ed t he chal l enged r ul e, t i t l ed

Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he Nat i onal Labor

Rel at i ons Act , on August 30, 2011, af t er a not i ce and comment

per i od. Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he Nat i onal

Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76 Fed. Reg. at 54, 006. The r ul e i s

composed of t hr ee subpar t s. Subpar t A, whi ch i s at i ssue i n

t hi s appeal , pr ovi des t hat [ a] l l empl oyer s subj ect t o t he NLRA

must post not i ces t o empl oyees, i n conspi cuous pl aces, i nf or mi ng

t hem of t hei r NLRA r i ght s, t oget her wi t h Boar d cont act

par t i es, t he aut hor i zi ng l egi sl at i on of t hese si st er agenci esspeaks t o i nvest i gat or y and enf or cement f unct i ons t hat t heagenci es may t hemsel ves i ni t i at e. See i nf r a Par t I I . B. 4.



10/36

10

i nf or mat i on and i nf or mat i on concerni ng basi c enf or cement

pr ocedur es. 29 C. F. R. 104. 202( a) . The t ext of t he not i ce

expl ai ns t o empl oyees:

The [ NLRA] guarantees t he r i ght of empl oyees t oor gani ze and bar gai n col l ect i vel y wi t h t hei rempl oyers, and t o engage i n other pr otected concer t edacti vi t y or t o r ef r ai n f r om engagi ng i n any of t heabove act i vi t y. Empl oyees cover ed by t he NLRA arepr ot ect ed f r om cer t ai n t ypes of empl oyer and uni onmi sconduct . Thi s Not i ce gi ves you gener al i nf or mat i onabout your r i ght s, and about t he obl i gat i ons ofempl oyers and uni ons under t he NLRA. Cont act t he[ NLRB] , t he Feder al agency t hat i nvest i gat es andr esol ves compl ai nt s under t he NLRA, usi ng the cont acti nf or mat i on suppl i ed bel ow, i f you have any quest i onsabout speci f i c r i ght s t hat may appl y i n yourpar t i cul ar wor kpl ace.

I d. at Pt . 104, Subpt . A, App. ( f oot not e omi t t ed) . I t goes on

t o l i st empl oyees r i ght s under t he Act and pr ovi de i nf or mat i on

as t o how t o cont act t he NLRB pr ompt l y t o pr ot ect your r i ght s.

I d.

Subpart B makes f ai l ur e t o post t he empl oyee not i ce a ULP

under Sect i on 8( a) ( 1) of t he NLRA. I d. 104. 210. I f , af t er an

adj udi cat i on, t he Boar d f i nds t hat an empl oyer has f ai l ed t o

post t he r equi r ed not i ce, t he Boar d wi l l or der t he empl oyer t o

cease and desi st t he unl awf ul conduct and post t he requi r ed

not i ce, al ong wi t h a r emedi al not i ce. I d. 104. 213. I f an

empl oyee f i l es a ULP charge compl ai ni ng t hat an empl oyer has

f ai l ed to post a not i ce, t he Boar d may excuse t he empl oyee f r om

t he usual si x- mont h st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons f or any ot her ULP



11/36

11

char ges. I d. 104. 214( a) . Fi nal l y, t he r ul e al l ows t he Boar d

t o consi der a knowi ng and wi l l f ul r ef usal t o compl y wi t h t he

r equi r ement t o post t he empl oyee not i ce as evi dence of unl awf ul

mot i ve i n ot her pr oceedi ngs bef or e i t . I d. 104. 214( b) . 3

The Board s pr i nci pal r at i onal e f or i nt r oduci ng t he not i ce-

post i ng rul e was t hat Amer i can wor ker s ar e l ar gel y i gnor ant of

t hei r r i ght s under t he NLRA, and t hi s i gnor ance st ands as an

obst acl e t o t he ef f ect i ve exer ci se of such r i ght s. Pr oposed

Rul es Gover ni ng Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he

Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 75 Fed. Reg. 80, 410, 80, 411 ( Dec.

22, 2010) ( codi f i ed at 29 C. F. R. pt . 104) . The Boar d poi nt ed t o

t he changi ng nat ur e of t he Amer i can wor kf or ce as par t of t he

cause of t hi s knowl edge gap- - i n par t i cul ar , t he Boar d not ed t hat

[ t ] he over whel mi ng maj or i t y of pr i vat e sect or empl oyees ar e not

r epr esent ed by uni ons, and t hus l ack an i mport ant sour ce of

i nf or mat i on about NLRA r i ght s; [ i ] mmi gr ant s, who compr i se an

i ncreasi ng pr opor t i on of t he nat i on s wor k f or ce, ar e unl i kel y

t o be f ami l i ar wi t h t hei r wor kpl ace r i ght s, i ncl udi ng t hei r

r i ght s under t he NLRA; and hi gh school st udent s, many of whom

ar e about t o ent er t he l abor f or ce, ar e uni nf or med about l abor

l aw and l abor r el at i ons. I d. The Boar d expl ai ned t hat

3 Subpar t C of t he r ul e cont ai ns anci l l ar y pr ovi si ons notr el evant t o t hi s appeal .



12/36

12

empl oyees l ack of awar eness of t hei r r i ght s st ems i n par t f r om

t he absence of any requi r ement t hat t hey be i nf ormed of t hose

r i ght s. The Boar d noted t hat [ t ] he NLRA i s al most uni que among

maj or Feder al l abor l aws i n not i ncl udi ng an expr ess s t at ut or y

pr ovi si on r equi r i ng empl oyer s r out i nel y to post not i ces at t hei r

wor kpl aces i nf or mi ng empl oyees of t hei r st at ut or y r i ght s. I d. 4

The chal l enged r ul e i s unusual i n several r espect s. The

Boar d has onl y rar el y engaged i n r ul emaki ng dur i ng i t s sevent y-

seven year hi st or y. And i t has never promul gat ed a not i ce-

post i ng r ul e of any ki nd. 5

I n t he publ i c comment per i od t hat f ol l owed t he pr omul gat i on

of t he r ul e, t he Boar d r ecei ved over 7, 000 submi ssi ons, t he

maj or i t y of whi ch opposed t he r ul e or aspect s of i t .

4

As t he Boar d obser ved, a number of other f ederal l aborst at ut es cont ai n expl i ci t empl oyee not i ce pr ovi si ons. SeeRai l way Labor Act ( RLA) , 45 U. S. C. 152, Fi f t h, Ei ght h; Ti t l eVI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 10( a) ;Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act , 29 U. S. C. 627;Occupat i onal Heal t h and Saf et y Act , 29 U. S. C. 657( c) ; Empl oyeePol ygr aph Pr ot ect i on Act , 29 U. S. C. 2003; Amer i cans wi t hDi sabi l i t i es Act , 42 U. S. C. 12115; Fami l y and Medi cal LeaveAct , 29 U. S. C. 2619( a) ; Uni f ormed Servi ce Empl oyment &Reempl oyment Ri ght s Act , 38 U. S. C. 4334( a) .

5

The Boar d has, on a case- by- case basi s, r equi r edi ndi vi dual empl oyers f ound t o have commi t t ed ULPs t o postr emedi al Boar d- suppl i ed not i ces i nf or mi ng empl oyees of t hei rr i ght s under t he Act . See, e. g. , Smi t hf i el d Packi ng Co. , 344N. L. R. B. 1, 15- 16 ( 2004) , af f d, Uni t ed Food and Commer ci alWorker s Uni on Local 204 v. NLRB, 447 F. 3d 821, 828 (D. C. Ci r2006) .



13/36

13

Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he Nat i onal Labor

Rel at i ons Act , 76 Fed. Reg. at 54, 007. Many comment s

di sput e[ d] t he boar d s st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o enact t he

pr oposed r ul e. I d. at 54, 008. 6

B.

On Sept ember 19, 2011, bef or e the rul e went i nt o ef f ect ,

t he Chamber f i l ed a compl ai nt i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Sout h Car ol i na f or i nj uncti ve r el i ef agai nst t he

NLRB, i t s Member s, and i t s Gener al Counsel . The par t i es f i l ed

cr oss mot i ons f or summar y j udgment on November 9, 2011, and the

di st r i ct cour t grant ed summary j udgment t o t he Chamber on Apr i l

13, 2012. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

Concur r ent l y, t he Nat i onal Associ at i on of Manuf act ur er s

f i l ed a sui t agai nst t he NLRB i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. See Nat l Ass n of Mf r s. v. NLRB, 846 F.

6 Addi t i onal l y, Member Br i an Hayes di ssent ed f r om t heBoar d s Not i ce of Proposed Rul emaki ng, ar gui ng t hat [ t ] he Boar dl acks t he stat ut or y aut hor i t y t o pr omul gat e or enf or ce t her ul e. Pr oposed Rul es Gover ni ng Not i f i cat i on of Empl oyee Ri ght sUnder t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 75 Fed. Reg. at 80, 415.Speci f i cal l y, Member Hayes determi ned t hat Sect i on 6 was notsuf f i ci ent aut hor i t y f or i mposi ng such a r equi r ement : [ t ] o t he

cont r ar y, Sect i on 10 of t he Act i ndi cat es t o me t hat t he Boar dcl ear l y l acks t he aut hor i t y t o or der af f i r mat i ve not i ce- post i ngact i on i n t he absence of an unf ai r l abor pr act i ce char ge f i l edby an out si de par t y. I d. Member Hayes ul t i mat el y di ssent edf r om t he pr omul gat i on of t he f i nal r ul e as wel l . Not i f i cat i onof Empl oyee Ri ght s Under t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 76Fed. Reg. at 54, 037- 42.



14/36

14

Supp. 2d 34 ( D. D. C. 2012) . That cour t grant ed summary j udgment

t o t he NLRB. The Nat i onal Associ at i on of Manuf act ur er s appeal ed

t o t he D. C. Ci r cui t , whi ch r ever sed t he di st r i ct cour t s

deci si on, hol di ng t hat t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e vi ol at es Sect i on

8( c) of t he NLRA, whi ch pr ohi bi t s t he NLRB f r om f i ndi ng empl oyer

speech t hat i s not coer ci ve t o be a ULP or evi dence of a ULP.

Nat l Ass n of Mf r s. v. NLRB, - - - F. 3d - - - - , 2013 WL 1876234

( D. C. Ci r . May 7, 2013) . 7 J udge Henderson, j oi ned by J udge

Br own, wr ot e a concur r ence, opi ni ng t hat t he Boar d al so l acked

aut hor i t y under Sect i on 6 t o i ssue t he r ul e. I d. ( Hender son,

J . , concur r i ng) .

I I .

A.

Pr el i mi nar y t o our consi der at i on of t he chal l enged r ul e ar e

t hr eshol d i nqui r i es as t o t he appr opr i at e mode of anal ysi s. We

f i r st addr ess t he Boar d s pr oposi t i on t hat t he not i ce- post i ng

r ul e shoul d be anal yzed under t he def er ent i al st andar d set f or t h

i n Mour ni ng v. Fami l y Publ i cat i ons Ser vi ce, I nc. , 411 U. S. 356

7 Al t hough the Chamber made a si mi l ar argument bel ow, t hepar t i es di d not addr ess t hi s i ssue i n t hei r br i ef s or dur i ngor al ar gument bef or e t hi s cour t . Because we det er mi ne t hat t heBoar d had no aut hor i t y t o i ssue the rul e, we do not r each t hequest i on of whet her i t was al so pr ecl uded f r om doi ng so bySect i on 8( c) .



15/36

15

( 1973) . Next , we choose between t wo compet i ng l enses t hr ough

whi ch t o anal yze t he i ssue of t he Boar d s aut hor i t y, det er mi ni ng

i f , as t he Boar d cont ends, t he r el evant quest i on i s whet her

Congr ess i nt ended t o wi t hhol d aut hor i t y t o i ssue t he chal l enged

r ul e f r om t he Boar d, or i f , as t he Chamber ar gues, t he r el evant

quest i on i s whet her Congr ess i nt ended t o gr ant t hat aut hor i t y.

1.

We st ar t wi t h t he Boar d s ar gument t hat t he chal l enged r ul e

i s pr oper l y anal yzed under Mour ni ng. Mour ni ng i nst r uct s t hat

r ul es i ssued pur suant t o br oad r ul emaki ng gr ant s such as Sect i on

6 ar e t o be uphel d i f t hey ar e r easonabl y r el at ed t o t he

pur poses of t he enabl i ng l egi sl at i on. 411 U. S. at 369

( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The Boar d

r easons t hat Mour ni ng pr ovi des t he appr opr i ate f r amework because

whi l e the f ami l i ar t wo- st ep mode of anal ysi s l ai d out by

Chevron, U. S. A. , I nc. v. Nat ur al Resour ces Def ense Counci l ,

I nc. , 467 U. S. 837 ( 1984) , appl i es t o an agency s const r uct i on

of a st at ut e, Mour ni ng s ai m i s t o anal yze subst ant i ve r ul es

t hat car r y out an agency s enabl i ng act , but do not necessar i l y

i nt er pr et speci f i c st at ut or y l anguage. Appel l ant s Br . at 5.

We f i nd t hi s di st i nct i on unt enabl e. Mour ni ng, a pr e-

Chevron case, r equi r es t hat a cour t def er t o the i nf or med

exper i ence and j udgment of t he agency t o whom Congr ess del egated

appr opr i at e aut hor i t y. 411 U. S. at 372 ( emphasi s added) .



16/36

16

Thus, Mour ni ng appl i es onl y af t er a cour t has det er mi ned t hat

Congr ess has i ndeed del egat ed i nt er pr et at i ve power s t o that

agency. See AFL- CI O v. Chao, 409 F. 3d 377, 384 ( D. C. Ci r .

2005) ; see al so Ci t y of Ar l i ngt on v. FCC, - - - S. Ct . - - - - , 2013

WL 2149789, at *8- 9 ( May 20, 2013) ( hol di ng t hat t he Chevr on

f r amewor k appl i es t o an agency s s t at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on

concer ni ng t he scope of i t s own aut hor i t y) .

2.

Not wi t hst andi ng t he f aci al i nappl i cabi l i t y of Mour ni ng, t he

Boar d cont ends t hat i t shoul d be consi dered t o have t he power t o

pr omul gat e t he rul e unl ess Congr ess expr essl y wi t hhel d t hat

aut hor i t y.

The Chamber , on t he ot her hand, cont ends t hat we shoul d

i nval i dat e t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e unl ess we f i nd t hat Congr ess

i nt ended t o del egat e t o t he Boar d t he power t o i ssue i t . The

Chamber s vi ew f i nds suppor t i n our pr ecedent . Speci f i cal l y, i n

determi ni ng t he appr opr i ate f r amework under whi ch to anal yze the

Food and Dr ug Admi ni st r at i on s ( FDA s) power t o pr omul gate a

chal l enged r egul at i on, we deemed t he quest i on of whether

Congr ess i nt ended t o gr ant aut hor i t y t he appr opr i at e one. See

Br own & Wi l l i amson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 153 F. 3d 155, 161 (4t h

Ci r . 1998) ( The di st r i ct cour t f r amed t he i ssue as whet her

Congr ess has evi denced i t s cl ear i nt ent t o wi t hhol d f r om FDA

j ur i sdi ct i on t o r egul at e t obacco product s as cust omar i l y



17/36

17

mar ket ed. However , we ar e of opi ni on t hat t he i ssue i s

cor r ect l y f r amed as whether Congr ess i nt ended t o del egate such

j ur i sdi ct i on t o t he FDA. ) , af f d, 529 U. S. 120 ( 2000) . Ot her

cour t s have f ol l owed t he same appr oach. See, e. g. , Am. Bar

Ass n v. FTC, 430 F. 3d 457, 468 ( D. C. Ci r . 2005) ( Pl ai nl y, i f

we were t o pr esume a del egat i on of power f r om t he absence of

an expr ess wi t hhol di ng of such power , agenci es woul d enj oy

vi r t ual l y l i mi t l ess hegemony . . . . ( quot i ng Ry. Labor Execs.

Ass n v. Nat l Medi at i on Bd. , 29 F. 3d 655, 671 ( D. C. Ci r .

1994) ) ) ; Si er r a Cl ub v. EPA, 311 F. 3d 853, 861 ( 7t h Ci r . 2002)

( Cour t s wi l l not pr esume a del egat i on of power based sol el y on

t he f act t hat t her e i s not an expr ess wi t hhol di ng of such

power . ( quot i ng Am. Pet r ol eum I nst . v. EPA, 52 F. 3d, 1113,

1120 ( D. C. Ci r . 1995) ) ) .

I n suppor t of i t s cont ent i on t o t he cont r ar y, t he Boar d

ci t es Amer i can Hospi t al Associ at i on v. NLRB ( AHA) , 499 U. S.

606 ( 1991) . I n AHA, t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed a chal l enge t o

a r ul e def i ni ng col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni t s f or acut e car e

hospi t al s. The pl ai nt i f f s t her e ar gued t hat because Sect i on

9( b) of t he NLRA r equi r es t he Boar d t o make bargai ni ng uni t

det er mi nat i ons i n each case, t he Boar d coul d not use i t s

gener al r ul emaki ng power under Sect i on 6 t o def i ne bar gai ni ng

uni t s. The Cour t det er mi ned t hat because Sect i on 9( a)

aut hor i zes t he Boar d t o deci de whet her a desi gnated uni t i s



18/36

18

appr opr i at e f or t he pur poses of col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng, i t coul d

pr omul gat e a r ul e pr oact i vel y def i ni ng col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

uni t s i n acut e car e hospi t al s, r at her t han det er mi ni ng t he

composi t i on of such uni t s t hr ough case- by- case adj udi cat i on.

The Cour t not ed t hat [ a] s a mat t er of st at ut or y draf t i ng, i f

Congr ess had i nt ended t o cur t ai l i n a par t i cul ar ar ea t he br oad

r ul emaki ng aut hor i t y gr ant ed i n 6, we woul d have expected i t

t o do so i n l anguage expr essl y descr i bi ng an except i on f r om t hat

secti on or at l east r ef er r i ng speci f i cal l y t o t he secti on.

AHA, 499 U. S. at 613.

The l anguage i n AHA t hat provi des t he basi s f or t he Board s

ar gument , ar i si ng as i t does i n t he cont ext of a bar gai ni ng uni t

det er mi nat i on as t o whi ch t he Boar d has been l egi sl at i vel y

gr ant ed aut hor i t y, i s i nappl i cabl e t o t he chal l enged r ul e. At

i ssue i n AHA was whet her Sect i on 9( b) l i mi t ed t he Boar d s

gener al aut hor i t y- - gr ant ed by Sect i on 6- - t o enact r ul es

necessary t o car r y out Sect i on 9. Here, on t he ot her hand,

t her e i s s i mpl y no aut hor i t y t o be l i mi t ed: as we emphasi ze

agai n, t her e i s no gener al gr ant of power t o t he NLRB out si de

t he rol es of addr ess i ng ULP charges and conduct i ng

r epr esent at i on el ect i ons. I ndeed, t he f act t hat none of t he

Act s pr ovi si ons cont ai n l anguage speci f i cal l y l i mi t i ng t he

Boar d s aut hor i t y t o enact a not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement r ef l ect s



19/36

19

t he absence of st at ut or y aut hor i t y f or act i ons out si de t hose

def i ned r esponsi bi l i t i es as a t hr eshol d mat t er .

Moreover , i n AHA, t he Supr eme Cour t was car ef ul t o l i mi t

i t s det er mi nat i on t hat aut hor i t y exi st ed f or t he pr omul gat i on of

t he rul e at i ssue i n t hi s case unl ess l i mi t ed by some ot her

pr ovi si on i n t he Act . 499 U. S. at 610 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s

nar r ow st at ement must be r ead i n i t s cont ext ; i t does not

suppor t t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he NLRB may enact any r ul e i t

wi shes unl ess some pr ovi si on of t he Act expr essl y wi t hhol ds

aut hor i t y f or i t t o do so, when no gener al aut hor i t y has been

gi ven by Congr ess i n t he f i r st i nst ance. Thus, i n our anal ysi s

here, we f ocus on t he quest i on of whether Congr ess i nt ended t o

gr ant t he NLRB t he aut hor i t y to i ssue t he chal l enged r ul e- - and

not whether Congr ess i nt ended t o wi t hhol d t hat power.

B.

Havi ng determi ned t he appr opr i ate f r amework, we consi der

t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e under Chevr on. We ask whether Congr ess

has di r ect l y spoken t o t he pr eci se quest i on at i ssue. I f t he

i nt ent of Congr ess i s cl ear , t hat i s t he end of t he mat t er ; f or

t he cour t , as wel l as t he agency, must gi ve ef f ect t o t he

unambi guousl y expr essed i nt ent of Congr ess. 467 U. S. at 842-

43. Onl y i f t he st at ut e i s si l ent or ambi guous wi t h r espect t o

t he speci f i c i ssue are we t o pr oceed t o Chevron s second st ep,



20/36

20

aski ng whether t he agency s answer i s based on a permi ss i bl e

const r uct i on of t he st at ut e. I d. at 843.

Under Chevron s f i r st st ep, we must use t he t r adi t i onal

t ool s of st at ut or y const r uct i on t o ascer t ai n congr essi onal

i nt ent . 467 U. S. at 842 n. 9. We t hus l ook t o t he t ext of t he

st at ut e, al ong wi t h t he over al l st at ut or y scheme, l egi sl at i ve

hi st or y, t he hi st or y of evol vi ng congr essi onal r egul at i on i n t he

ar ea, and . . . ot her r el evant st at ut es. Br own & Wi l l i amson,

153 F. 3d at 162 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We ar e

onl y t o empl oy t he def erence of st ep t wo when t he devi ces of

j udi ci al const r uct i on have been t r i ed and f ound t o yi el d no

cl ear sense of congr essi onal i nt ent . Gen. Dynami cs Land Sys. ,

I nc. v. Cl i ne, 540 U. S. 581, 600 ( 2004) . Because we do not

pr esume a del egat i on of power si mpl y f r om t he absence of an

expr ess wi t hhol di ng of power , we do not f i nd t hat Chevr on s

second st ep i s i mpl i cat ed any t i me a st at ut e does not expr essl y

negate t he exi st ence of a cl ai med admi ni st r at i ve power. Am.

Bar Ass n, 430 F. 3d at 468 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

1.

I n assessi ng t he val i di t y of t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e, we

begi n by exami ni ng t he pl ai n l anguage of t he NLRA. See CSX

Tr ansp. , I nc. v. Al a. Dep t of Revenue, 131 S. Ct . 1101, 1107

( 2011) . Thus, we l ook t o t he t ext of Sect i on 6 of t he Act ,



21/36

21

whi ch gr ant s t he Boar d aut hor i t y t o i ssue r ul es t hat ar e

necessary t o car r y out t he pr ovi si ons of t he Act . 29 U. S. C.

156.

We, l i ke t he Chamber, r ead t he l anguage i n Sect i on 6 as

r equi r i ng t hat some sect i on of t he Act pr ovi de t he expl i ci t or

i mpl i ci t aut hor i t y t o i ssue a r ul e. Because t he Boar d i s

nowhere charged wi t h i nf ormi ng empl oyees of t hei r r i ght s under

t he NLRA, we f i nd no i ndi cat i on i n t he pl ai n l anguage of t he Act

t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o gr ant t he Boar d t he aut hor i t y t o

pr omul gat e such a r equi r ement .

The Board cont est s t hi s r eadi ng of t he st at ut e, ar gui ng

t hat t he wor d necessar y i s i nher ent l y ambi guous, br i ngi ng us

di r ect l y t o Chevr on s st ep t wo. I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument ,

t he Boar d r el i es, i n par t , on l anguage f r om Mour ni ng expl ai ni ng

t hat [ w] her e the empower i ng pr ovi si on of a st at ut e st at es

si mpl y t hat t he agency may make . . . such r ul es and

r egul at i ons as may be necessar y to car r y out t he pr ovi si ons of

t hi s Act , we ar e t o sust ai n t he val i di t y of a r egul at i on

pr omul gat ed t her eunder so l ong as i t i s r easonabl y r el at ed t o

t he pur poses of t he enabl i ng l egi sl at i on. 411 U. S. at 369

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . However , as we have expl ai ned, t hi s

gui dance i s r el evant onl y once we have determi ned t hat a st atut e

i s ambi guous. That i s, we ar e onl y t o def er t o an agency s

i nt er pr etat i on of what i s necessar y once we have pr ogr essed t o



22/36

22

Chevron s second st ep. Mour ni ng s exhor t at i on t hat we def er t o

t he i nf ormed exper i ence and j udgment of t he agency t o whom

Congr ess del egat ed appr opr i at e aut hor i t y, i d. at 372, t hus

cannot be r ead as r equi r i ng us t o def er t o t he agency s

i nt er pr et at i on as we conduct our i ni t i al anal ysi s of t he Act .

Mor eover , even i f t he t er m necessar y, st andi ng on i t s

own, may be deemed ambi guous, we need not aut omat i cal l y def er t o

t he Boar d s i nt er pr et at i on. Mer e ambi gui t y i n a st at ut e i s

not evi dence of congr essi onal del egat i on of aut hor i t y. Am.

Bar Ass n, 430 F. 3d at 469 ( quot i ng Mi chi gan v. EPA, 268 F. 3d

1075, 1082 ( D. C. Ci r . 2001) ) . Rat her , [ t ] he ambi gui t y must be

such as t o make i t appear t hat Congr ess ei t her expl i ci t l y or

i mpl i ci t l y del egat ed aut hor i t y t o cur e t hat ambi gui t y. I d.

Even when Congress has st at ed t hat t he agency may do what i s

necessar y, whatever ambi gui t y may exi st cannot r ender nugat or y

r est r i ct i ons that Congr ess has i mposed. AFL- CI O, 409 F. 3d at

384 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thus, as t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

observed, [ t ] he Boar d may not di sr egar d rest r i ct i ons Congr ess

has i mposed on i t s aut hor i t y i n ot her sect i ons of t he gover ni ng

st at ut e by r el yi ng on Sect i on 6 i n i sol at i on t o t hese

subst ant i ve pr ovi si ons. Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, 856 F.



23/36

23

Supp. 2d 778, 790 (D. S. C. 2012) . 8 As we di scuss i n gr eat er

det ai l bel ow, t he subst ant i ve pr ovi si ons of t he Act make cl ear

t hat t he Boar d i s a r eact i ve ent i t y, and t hus do not i mpl y t hat

Congr ess i nt ended t o al l ow pr oact i ve r ul emaki ng of t he sor t

chal l enged her e thr ough t he gener al r ul emaki ng pr ovi si on of

Sect i on 6. 9

2.

Cont i nui ng wi t h our anal ysi s of t he r ul e under Chevron s

f i r st st ep, we next consi der t he st r uct ur e of t he NLRA. I n

8 The Ni nt h Ci r cui t dr ew t he same concl usi on i n st r i ki ngdown an NLRB r egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng Boar d empl oyees f r ompr oduci ng f i l es i n r esponse t o subpoenas, r easoni ng t hatal t hough Sect i on 6 aut hor i zes t he Boar d t o adopt r ul es andr egul at i ons t o car r y out i t s f unct i ons i n a manner consi st entwi t h t he f ul f i l l ment of t he pur poses of t he Act , t he st at ut edoes not aut hor i ze t he Boar d t o pr omul gate r ul es andr egul at i ons whi ch have t he ef f ect of enl ar gi ng i t s aut hor i t ybeyond t he scope i nt ended by Congr ess. Gen. Eng g, I nc. v.

NLRB, 341 F. 2d 367, 374 ( 9t h Ci r . 1965) .9 The Boar d poi nts out t hat i n AHA t he Supreme Cour t

appr oved t he Boar d s pr omul gat i on of a r ul e def i ni ng cer t ai nbar gai ni ng uni t s pr oact i vel y- - r at her t han i n r esponse t o thef i l i ng of a r epr esent at i on pet i t i on- - as an accept abl e use of t hepower del egated t o t he Boar d under Sect i on 6. However , t hedet er mi nat i on of bar gai ni ng uni t s i s one of t he r ol es Congr essexpr essl y i nt ended t he Boar d t o pl ay. See 29 U. S. C. 159. I ncont r ast , t he NLRA- - unl i ke many ot her l abor st at ut es- - i s si l entas t o any rol e f or i t s admi ni st er i ng agency i n enact i ng not i ce-post i ng r equi r ement s or any af f i r mat i ve dut y f or empl oyer s t opost not i ces. Mor eover , as t he di st r i ct cour t not ed, t hebar gai ni ng uni t s r ul e at i ssue i n AHA def i ned how t he Boar dwoul d handl e i ssues af t er t he Boar d s adj udi cat i ve aut hor i t y wast r i ggered. Chamber of Commerce, 856 F. Supp. 2d at 791. Here,t he Boar d at t empt s somet hi ng di st i nct and novel : t he pr oact i vei mposi t i on of a dut y upon empl oyer s t hat does not f l ow f r om anyof t he pr ovi si ons of t he Act .



24/36

24

det er mi ni ng whet her Congr ess has speci f i cal l y addr essed t he

quest i on at i ssue, a r evi ewi ng cour t shoul d not conf i ne i t sel f

t o exami ni ng a par t i cul ar st at ut or y pr ovi si on i n i sol at i on. The

meani ng- - or ambi gui t y- - of cer t ai n wor ds or phr ases may onl y

become evi dent when pl aced i n context . FDA v. Br own &

Wi l l i amson Tobacco Cor p. , 529 U. S. 133, 132 ( 2000) . Thus, i n

addi t i on t o t he l anguage of Sect i on 6 i t sel f , we must l ook t o

t he speci f i c cont ext i n whi ch t hat l anguage i s used, and t he

br oader cont ext of t he st at ut e as a whol e. McLean v. Uni t ed

St at es, 566 F. 3d 391, 396 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Robi nson v.

Shel l Oi l Co. , 519 U. S. 337, 341 ( 1997) ) . An exami nat i on of t he

r est of t he Act r eveal s no pr ovi si on t hat a not i ce- post i ng r ul e

i s necessar y t o car r y out .

The Board poi nt s t o a number of sect i ons i n t he Act ,

ar gui ng t hat t he r ul e i s necessar y t o car r y t hem out . The

Chamber r esponds t hat no pr ovi si on i n t he Act r equi r es empl oyers

who have not commi t t ed l abor vi ol at i ons t o be subj ect t o a dut y

t o post empl oyee not i ces. We agr ee. The NLRB ser ves expr essl y

r eact i ve r ol es: conduct i ng r epr esent at i on el ect i ons and

r esol vi ng ULP charges. As an exami nat i on of t he Act as a whol e

makes evi dent , none of i t s sect i ons i mpl y t hat Congr ess i nt ended

t o gr ant t he Boar d aut hor i t y t o i ssue t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e

sua spont e.



25/36

25

Fi r st , Sect i on 1, whi ch l ays out t he pur pose and

aspi r at i ons of t he NLRA, does not pr ovi de t he Boar d wi t h

aut hor i t y t o act . The Boar d ar gues that because Sect i on 1 set s

f or t h t he Act s pol i cy i n br oad t er ms, i t i s speci f i cal l y

desi gned t o per mi t t he Boar d t o spel l out [ i t s] appl i cat i ons.

Appel l ant s Br . at 39. However , any ar gument t hat t he st at ut e s

st at ement of pur pose can pr ovi de t he agency wi t h t he aut hor i t y

t o pr omul gat e any regul at i on i n f ur t her ance of t hat pur pose i s

unavai l i ng. The NLRB i s bound, not onl y by t he ul t i mat e

pur poses Congr ess has sel ect ed, but by t he means i t has deemed

appr opr i at e, and pr escr i bed, f or t he pur sui t of t hose

pur poses. Col o. Ri ver I ndi an Tr i bes v. Nat l I ndi an Gami ng

Comm n, 466 F. 3d 134, 139 ( D. C. Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng MCI

Tel ecomms. Cor p. v. AT&T, 512 U. S. 218, 231 n. 4 ( 1994) ) .

Si mi l ar l y, Sect i on 7, whi ch l i st s r i ght s pr ot ect ed under

t he Act , does not pr ovi de t he Boar d wi t h speci f i c aut hor i t y to

act . I ndeed, l anguage i n t he Boar d s own br i ef bel i es i t s

ar gument . The Boar d cont ends that t he chal l enged r ul e i s

necessar y t o car r y out t he cor e r i ght s set f or t h by Sect i on 7.

Appel l ant s Br . at 11 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

However , whi l e t hese r i ght s exi st t hanks t o the NLRA and ar e to

be pr ot ect ed i n t he manner set f or t h by the NLRA s provi si ons,

si gni f i cant l y, r i ght s ar e not f uncti ons or pr ovi si ons t o be

car r i ed out . See Nat l Ass n of Mf r s. , 2013 WL 1876234, at



26/36

26

*15 ( Hender son, J . , concur r i ng) ( Nei t her [ Sect i on 1 nor Sect i on

7] cont ai ns any par t i cul ar i zed pr ovi si on t hat t he Boar d can

car r y out by r egul at i on or ot her wi se. ) .

Nor does Sect i on 8, whi ch def i nes ULPs under t he Act ,

pr ovi de the Boar d wi t h t he power t o requi r e the post i ng of

not i ces. The Boar d not es t hat i t s aut hor i t y under Sect i on 6

extends t o def i ni ng what const i t ut es a ULP under Sect i on

8( a) ( 1) , and ar gues t hat Sect i on 8 t hus gi ves i t aut hor i t y t o

pr omul gat e t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e, whi ch makes i t a ULP t o f ai l

t o post t he empl oyee not i ce. Speci f i cal l y, f r om i t s power t o

i nt er pr et what const i t ut es i nt er f er e[ nce] wi t h, r est r ai n[ t ] , or

coer c[ i on of ] empl oyees i n t he exer ci se of t he r i ght s guar ant eed

i n [ Sect i on 7] , 29 U. S. C. 158( a) ( 1) , t he Boar d at t empt s t o

ext r act t he aut hor i t y t o cr eat e a new ULP based on t he f ai l ur e

t o post not i ces educat i ng empl oyees about t hei r Sect i on 7

r i ght s. Whi l e we r ecogni ze t hat the Boar d has t he

r esponsi bi l i t y t o adapt t he Act t o changi ng pat t er ns of

i ndust r i al l i f e, NLRB v. J . Wei ngar t en, I nc. , 420 U. S. 251, 266

( 1975) , and t hat Congr ess di d not under t ake t he i mpossi bl e task

of speci f yi ng i n pr eci se and unmi st akabl e l anguage each i nci dent

whi ch woul d const i t ut e an unf ai r l abor pr act i ce, Republ i c

Avi at i on Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793, 798 ( 1945) , we cannot

accept an i nt er pr et at i on of t he Act t hat woul d al l ow t he NLRB t o



27/36

27

boot st r ap Sect i on 8( a) ( 1) i nt o aut hor i t y to enact t he

unpr ecedent ed r ul e at i ssue her e.

Fi nal l y, and of most si gni f i cance, t he not i ce- post i ng r ul e

i s not necessary to car r y out Sect i ons 9 and 10, whi ch set

f or t h t he Boar d s responsi bi l i t i es f or conduct i ng r epr esent at i on

el ect i ons and adj udi cat i ng ULP char ges. As we have di scussed,

Sect i ons 9 and 10 l ay out r eact i ve r ol es f or t he Boar d; t he

pr ocesses t hey pr ovi de f or ar e not set i n mot i on unt i l a par t y

f i l es a r epr esent at i on pet i t i on or a ULP char ge. The Boar d

cont ends t hat t he Act pr esupposes knowl edge of NLRA r i ght s and

t hei r enf orcement mechani sms, and t hat empl oyee knowl edge of

NLRA r i ght s and how t o enf or ce t hem wi t hi n st atut or y t i mef r ames

i s cruci al t o ef f ectuat e Congr ess s nat i onal l abor pol i cy

t hr ough t he pr ocesses est abl i shed by Sect i ons 8, 9, and 10.

Appel l ant s Br . at 12. Essent i al l y, t he Boar d ar gues t hat

because t he enf orcement f unct i ons provi ded f or by Sect i ons 9 and

10 ar e r eact i ve, i t was necessar y t o pr oact i vel y cr eat e t he

chal l enged r ul e i n or der f or empl oyees t o under t ake t hei r r ol e

i n i nst i gat i ng t hose pr ocesses. Wi t h t hi s r easoni ng, t he Boar d

at t empt s t o der i ve f r om pr ovi si ons gover ni ng t he f unct i ons and

oper at i on of t he agency the aut hor i t y t o do somet hi ng ent i r el y

di st i nct f r om t hose f unct i ons, wi t h t he r at i onal e t hat doi ng so

woul d make t hem mor e ef f ect i ve. However , r egar dl ess of how

l audabl e t he NLRB s goal of educat i ng wor ker s may be, t her e i s



28/36

28

not hi ng i n t he t ext of t he NLRA t o suggest t he bur den of f i l l i ng

t he knowl edge gap shoul d f al l on t he empl oyer s shoul der s.

Nat l Ass n of Mf r s. , 2013 WL 1876234, at *16 ( Hender son, J . ,

concur r i ng) . Put si mpl y, we cannot accept t he Boar d s ci r cul ar

ar gument ; t he Boar d may not j ust i f y an expansi on of i t s r ol e to

i ncl ude pr oact i ve r egul at i on of empl oyer s conduct by not i ng i t s

r eact i ve r ol e under t he Act . 10

10 The Boar d al so ci t es Sect i on 11 of t he Act i n suppor t ofi t s argument t hat had Congr ess i nt ended t o l i mi t t he Boar d saut hor i t y t o pr omul gat e t he not i ce- post i ng r egul at i on, i t woul dhave expr essed t hat l i mi t at i on somewher e i n t he st at ut e. TheBoar d cont r ast s Sect i on 6, whi ch cont ai ns no wor ds ofl i mi t at i on, wi t h Sect i on 11, whi ch det ai l s t he Boar d s subpoenapower but expl i ci t l y l i mi t s t hat aut hor i t y t o hear i ngs andi nvest i gat i ons . . . necessary and pr oper f or t he exer ci se oft he power s vest ed i n [ t he Boar d] by sect i ons [ 9] and [ 10] . 29U. S. C. 161. Thi s l anguage i n Sect i on 11 demonst r at es, ar gues

t he Boar d, t hat when Congr ess want s t o l i mi t t he Boar d s powerby ref er ence t o Sect i ons 9 and 10, i t does so expl i ci t l y. Appel l ant s Br . at 30. We f i nd t hi s compar i son unavai l i ngbecause i t i s based on t he i ncor r ect pr emi se t hat t he Boar dshoul d be consi dered t o have t he power t o i ssue t he chal l engedr ul e unl ess Congr ess expr essl y wi t hhel d t hat aut hor i t y.Moreover , we note t hat i n Sect i on 11, t he NLRA cr eat es aspeci f i c power , t o whi ch i t at t ached speci f i c l i mi t s. Theaut hor i t y del egat ed under Sect i on 6 i s unquest i onabl y br oader ,but as we have expl ai ned, t he f act t hat Congr ess di d not at t achexpl i ci t l i mi t s t o i t does not make i t l i mi t l ess. Fur t her mor e,

det ai l i ng l i mi t s si mi l ar t o t hose i n Sect i on 11 coul d haveconst r ai ned t he Boar d i n ways not i nt ended by Congr ess. SeeAppel l ees Br . at 20 n. 4 ( [ I ] t woul d not have made sense f orCongr ess t o l i mi t t he Boar d s r ul emaki ng aut hor i t y onl y t oSect i on 9 and 10 of t he Act because t hat woul d have pr event edt he Boar d, f or exampl e, f r om pr omul gat i ng r ul es def i ni ng anyambi guous pr ovi si ons i n Sect i on 8. ) .



29/36


30/36

30

3.

We al so f i nd t he hi st or y of t he NLRA i nst r uct i ve,

par t i cul ar l y vi s- a- vi s congr essi onal t r eat ment of si st er

agenci es wi t h st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on t o r equi r e t he post i ng of

not i ces. We f i nd t hat the Act s hi st or y pr ovi des no

count er vai l i ng evi dence of an i nt ent t o best ow t he Boar d wi t h

t he power t o enact t he chal l enged r egul at i on.

Repor t s on ear l y ver si ons of t he NLRA i ndi cat e t hat t he

Boar d was desi gned t o serve a r eact i ve r ol e, wi t h i t s quasi -

j udi ci al power bei ng r est r i ct ed t o [ t he enumer at ed] unf ai r

l abor pr act i ces and t o cases i n whi ch t he choi ce of

r epr esent at i ves i s doubt f ul . S. Rep. No. 73- 1184 ( 1934) ,

r epr i nt ed i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 1100. Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on

i n t he Act s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of an i nt ent t o al l ow t he Boar d

t o i mpose dut i es upon empl oyer s proact i vel y; i ndeed, i f

anythi ng, i t appear s t o have been t he i nt ent of Congr ess t hat

t he Boar d not be empowered t o pl ay such a r ol e. Cf . H. R. Rep.

No. 74- 969 ( 1935) , r epr i nt ed i n 2 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 2932

( not i ng t hat Sect i on 11 does not gr ant t he Boar d t he power s of a

r ovi ng commi ss i on) .

Of par t i cul ar si gni f i cance, Congr ess consi der ed and

r ej ect ed a di f f er ent not i ce pr ovi si on i n t he NLRA t hat woul d

have requi r ed any empl oyer t hat was a part y t o a cont r act t hat

conf l i ct ed wi t h t he NLRA t o not i f y i t s empl oyees of t he



31/36

31

vi ol at i on and i ndi cat e t hat t he cont r act woul d be abr ogat ed. S.

2926, 73r d Cong. 304( b) ( as i nt r oduced i n Senate on Feb. 28,

1934) , r epr i nt ed i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 14; H. R. 8434 73r d

Cong. 304( b) ( as i nt r oduced i n House Mar . 1, 1934) , r epr i nt ed

i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 1140. 13 I n t he spr i ng of 1934, as t he

bi l l was bei ng consi dered, t he Senate Commi t t ee on Educat i on and

Labor expr essed unani mous agr eement f or r emovi ng the sect i on

cont ai ni ng t hat not i ce pr ovi si on, 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 394- 95,

and on May 26, 1934, a subst i t ut e bi l l - - wi t h t he not i ce

pr ovi si on r emoved- - was r epor t ed f avor abl y t o t he Senat e. S.

2926, 73r d Cong. 304( b) ( as i nt r oduced i n Senate on May 26,

1934) , r epr i nt ed i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . 1070- 98. Al t hough t hi s

not i ce pr ovi si on woul d have spoken t o a di f f er ent i ssue t han t he

one at hand, t he f act t hat Congr ess consi der ed t he possi bi l i t y

of a not i ce r equi r ement i ndi cat es at t he ver y l east t hat

13 Al ong wi t h the pr oposed r equi r ement t hat empl oyer s not i f yempl oyees of cont r act s t hat vi ol at ed t he NLRA, t he i ni t i alver si ons of t he Act made i t a ULP t o f ai l t o pr ovi de thatnot i ce. S. 2926, 73r d Cong. 5( 5) ( as i nt r oduced i n Senat e onFeb. 28, 1934) , r epr i nt ed i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . , at 3; H. R. 843473r d Cong. 5( 5) ( as i nt r oduced i n House Mar . 1, 1934) ,r epr i nt ed i n 1 NLRA Leg. Hi st . at 1130. The f act t hat t he ear l y

ver si ons of t he Act cont ai ned a speci f i c, not i ce- r el at ed ULPf ur t her weakens t he Boar d s at t empt , addr essed above, t oboot st r ap aut hor i t y f or t he chal l enged r ul e f r om i t s aut hor i t yt o def i ne what const i t ut es a ULP under Sect i on 8( a) ( 1) . HadCongr ess i nt ended t o r equi r e t he post i ng of not i ces, or make t hef ai l ur e t o do so be puni shabl e as a ULP, i t coul d have made thati nt ent cl ear i n i t s l egi s l at i on.



32/36

32

Congr ess was awar e of t he opt i on of aut hor i zi ng such act i on and

chose not t o.

Moreover , at t he same t i me as i t excl uded a not i ce

pr ovi si on f r om t he NLRA, Congr ess amended anot her l abor st at ut e,

t he RLA, t o i ncl ude t wo not i ce pr ovi si ons. Pub. L. No. 73- 442,

48 St at . 1185 ( 1934) ( codi f i ed as amended at 45 U. S. C. 151 et

seq. ) . Fi r st , Congr ess amended t he RLA t o r equi r e empl oyer s

subj ect t o t hat Act t o not i f y empl oyees t hat , i f any cont r act

r equi r i ng empl oyees t o j oi n a uni on or not j oi n a uni on had been

enf or ced, such cont r act was no l onger bi ndi ng. S. 3266, 73d

Cong. 2, Fi f t h ( as i nt r oduced Mar . 28, 1934) , r epr i nt ed i n 1

The Rai l way Labor Act of 1926: A Legi sl at i ve Hi st or y at 742

( Mi chael H. Campbel l & Edward C. Br ewer I I I eds. 1988) ( RLA

Leg. Hi st . ) ; H. R. 9861, 73d Cong. 2, Fi f t h ( as i nt r oduced

J un. 4, 1934) , r epr i nted i n 1 RLA Leg. Hi st . at 894. Thi s

pr ovi si on was ver y si mi l ar t o t he abr ogat i on and not i ce

pr ovi si on i ncl uded i n t he or i gi nal NLRA House and Senat e bi l l s.

A second pr ovi si on i ncl uded i n t he amended RLA r equi r ed

empl oyer s t o i nf or m t hei r empl oyees by pr i nt ed not i ce of t he

di sput e- r esol ut i on pr ovi si ons of t he RLA. S. 3266, 73d Cong.

2, Ei ght h ( as i nt r oduced Mar . 28, 1934) , r epr i nt ed i n 1 RLA Leg.

Hi st . at 743- 44; H. R. 9861, 73d Cong. 2, Ei ght h ( as i nt r oduced

J un. 4, 1934) , r epr i nted i n 1 RLA Leg. Hi st . at 895- 96. These

not i ce requi r ement s- - whi ch wer e si gned i nt o l aw on J une 21,



33/36

33

1934- - suppor t t he pr oposi t i on that when Congr ess i nt ends f or t he

post i ng of not i ces t o be r equi r ed, i t pr ovi des as much i n i t s

l egi s l at i on.

4.

Fi nal l y, we consi der t he hi st or y of evol vi ng

congr essi onal r egul at i on i n t he ar ea. Br own & Wi l l i amson, 153

F. 3d at 162 ( quot i ng Dunn v. Commodi t y Fut ures Tradi ng Comm n,

519 U. S. 465, 475 ( 1997) ) . A compar i son of t he NLRA t o

subsequent l abor l egi sl at i on pr ovi des addi t i onal evi dence t hat

Congr ess di d not i nt end t o gr ant t he Boar d t he aut hor i t y t o

i ssue a not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement .

I n addi t i on t o t he not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement i n t he RLA,

Congr ess has i ncl uded not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement s i n a number of

ot her f eder al l abor l aws. Sever al l abor st at ut es passed dur i ng

t he span of year s bet ween 1935 and 1974, dur i ng whi ch t he NLRA

was amended t hr ee t i mes, pr ovi de f or t he post i ng of not i ces.

See Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C.

2000e- 10( a) ; Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act , 29 U. S. C.

627; Occupat i onal Saf ety & Heal t h Act , 29 U. S. C. 657( c) .

Si nce that t i me, a number of ot her l abor st at ut es have been

passed t hat have r equi r ed t he post i ng of not i ces. See Empl oyee

Pol ygr aph Pr ot ect i on Act , 29 U. S. C. 2003; Amer i cans wi t h

Di sabi l i t i es Act , 42 U. S. C. 12115; Fami l y and Medi cal Leave

Act , 29 U. S. C. 2619( a) . Even mor e t el l i ngl y, on at l east one



34/36

34

occasi on, Congr ess has amended a l abor l aw t o i mpose a not i ce-

post i ng r equi r ement . See Veterans Benef i t s I mpr ovement Act of

2004, Pub. L. No. 108- 454, 203, 118 St at . 3606 ( 2004)

( codi f i ed as amended at 38 U. S. C. 4334) .

The cont r ast bet ween t he r ol es t he NLRA set s f or t h f or t he

NLRB and t hose that ot her f eder al l abor st at ut es pr escr i be f or

t hose of i t s si st er agenci es wi t h not i ce- post i ng aut hor i t y i s of

par t i cul ar si gni f i cance. As we have di scussed, t he Boar d s cor e

f unct i ons ar e r eact i ve ones. I n cont r ast , ot her agenci es t hat

have pr omul gated not i ce- post i ng r equi r ement s have pr oact i ve

mandat es. For i nst ance, t he EEOC, whi ch i s gr ant ed t he

aut hor i t y to r equi r e t he post i ng of not i ces, 29 U. S. C. 627; 42

U. S. C. 2000e- 10( a) ; 42 U. S. C. 12115, has t he power t o

pr oact i vel y f i l e char ges and under t ake i nvest i gat i ons,

r egar dl ess of whet her a par t y f i l es a char ge, 42 U. S. C.

2000e- 5( b) , 2000e- 8( a) . The same i s t r ue of t he Occupat i onal

Saf et y & Heal t h Admi ni st r at i on, see 29 U. S. C. 657, 659, as

wel l as t he Depar t ment of Labor ( DOL) more general l y, see,

e. g. , 29 U. S. C. 211( a) , 216( c) , 217, 2005, 2616, 2617. 14

14 The Boar d compares t he chal l enged r ul e t o a DOL not i ce-post i ng r equi r ement , whi ch i t enact ed under t he Fai r LaborSt andar ds Act ( FLSA) , despi t e t hat st at ut e s si l ence as t onot i ce- post i ng. The Boar d poi nt s us t o no aut hor i t y anal yzi ngwhet her t hat st at ut e gr ant s t he DOL aut hor i t y t o enact a not i ce-post i ng r equi r ement , and we do not addr ess t hat i ssue here. Wedo not e t hat r equi r i ng uni ver sal empl oyer not i ce- post i ng i s mor e

( Cont i nued)



35/36

35

Congr ess s cont i nued excl usi on of a not i ce- post i ng

r equi r ement f r om t he NLRA, concomi t ant wi t h i t s gr ant i ng of such

aut hor i t y t o ot her agenci es, can f ai r l y be consi der ed

del i berate. See Br own & Wi l l i amson, 529 U. S. at 133 ( 2000)

( [ T]he meani ng of one st atut e may be af f ected by ot her Act s,

par t i cul ar l y where Congr ess has spoken subsequent l y and more

speci f i cal l y t o t he t opi c at hand. ) . Had Congr ess i nt ended t o

gr ant t he NLRB t he power t o requi r e t he post i ng of empl oyee

r i ght s not i ces, i t coul d have amended t he NLRA t o do so.

congr uous wi t h t he DOL s proact i ve r ol es i n enf or ci ng t he FLSAt han i t i s wi t h t he NLRB s r eact i ve r ol es. Unl i ke t he NLRB, t heDOL has t he abi l i t y under t he FLSA t o pr oact i vel y conducti nvest i gat i ons and f i l e enf or cement act i ons. 29 U. S. C. 211( a) , 216( c) , 217; see DOL, Enf orcement Under t he Fai r LaborSt andar ds Act , ht t p: / / www. dol . gov/ el aws/ esa/ f l sa/ scr een74. asp

( l ast vi si t ed May 31, 2013) . Fur t her mor e, i n enact i ng i t snot i ce- post i ng r ul e, t he DOL was act i ng pur suant t o an enabl i ngst at ut e di st i nct i n r el evant r espects f r om t he NLRA. I npar t i cul ar , t he FLSA i ncl uded a r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement , 29U. S. C. 211( c) , and t he DOL pr omul gat ed i t s not i ce- post i ngr egul at i on under i t s aut hor i t y to enf or ce t hat pr ovi si on, see 29C. F. R. 516. 4.



36/36

I I I .

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, 15 t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct

cour t i s

AFFI RMED.

15 Havi ng det er mi ned under Chevron s f i r st st ep t hat t heNLRA unambi guousl y does not gr ant aut hor i t y t o t he NLRB t opr omul gate t he chal l enged r ul e, our anal ysi s ends, and we do notpr oceed t o Chevr on s second st ep.


nlrb poster rule smacked by 4th circuit

Documents