The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is an important tool for protecting workers from employers’ interference with efforts to organize and bargain collectively. Workers and unions may file complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has the authority to investigate alleged unlawful acts. If the NLRB believes an employer has acted unlawfully, it can take legal action. This includes seeking injunctions to prevent further NLRA violations while the claim for unfair labor practices proceeds. This can include reinstating employees after termination. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a dispute regarding what the NLRB needs to prove in court to obtain a preliminary injunction. The court’s ruling in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sets limits on the NLRB’s authority in this regard. It could affect New Jersey employment law claims dealing with labor rights.
Section 10(j) of the NLRA gives the NLRB the authority to petition a court for injunctive relief when it believes someone has engaged in unfair labor practices. Courts are generally hesitant to grant injunctions, which restrain a person from certain activities on penalty of contempt. This is particularly true when the request for an injunction comes at the beginning of a legal proceeding before each side of the dispute has had an opportunity to present their cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court outlined a four-part test for preliminary injunctions in 2008 in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It states that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show the following:
1. They are likely to succeed based on the merits of their claims.
2. They are likely to suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction.
3. The “balance of equities” is more favorable to them.
4. An injunction would be in the public interest.
The lower courts in Starbucks applied a different test that specifically addresses § 10(j) injunctions. This test, which derives from Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, consists of two parts:
1. Reasonable cause exists to believe a person has engaged in unfair labor practices.
2. Injunctive relief would serve the interests of justice.
The Starbucks case involves a union interference claim filed with the NLRB. The employer had fired several employees who were involved in union organizing activity, claiming they violated company policies. The NLRB successfully petitioned a federal court for a § 10(j) injunction. The injunction ordered the employer to reinstate the employees.
The employer appealed this order. After the appellate court affirmed the order, the Supreme Court vacated it. The court held that the trial court should have applied the four-part Winter test rather than the two-part test.
The Winter test sets a much higher bar for preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court rejected an argument from the NLRB that the NLRA does not require such a stringent standard for § 10(j) injunctions. It held that the “normal equitable rules” embodied by the Winter test apply to the NLRA in the absence of clear language to the contrary.
Employees who have experienced unlawful employment practices in New Jersey or New York have legal rights. A skilled employment lawyer can advise you of your options and guide you through the process of asserting a claim for damages. Schedule a confidential consultation with the Resnick Law Group today by calling 973-781-1204 or 646-867-7997 or through our website.