Judges for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the two Texas district courts effectively denied Amazon and SpaceX their requests for preliminary injunctions in a pair of ongoing labor disputes with the National Labor Relations Board.
During the arguments that happened on November 18, the three-judge panel seemed to have reservations on Amazon’s claim that the district judge’s failure to issue a stay and preliminary injunction by September 27 constituted a denial of its request altogether.
Amazon legal dispute
Judge James Graves Jr. noted that the district judge had asked the parties to file supplemental briefing in the case by September 27. “You wanted him to receive the briefing on the 27th, read it, review it, vet it and rule all on the 27th,” Graves said in a brief back-and-forth with Trevor Cox, counsel for Amazon. “That just doesn’t seem reasonable to me.”
Cox countered that the court had “plenty of time” to consider the request and was aware of the need for a decision. When asked by other members of the court whether the NLRB had given Amazon advance notice of whether it actually intended to issue a decision by Sept. 27, Cox said that the agency had not done so.
Amazon challenges NLRB labor dispute
Julie Gutman Dickinson, counsel for the intervenor Teamsters union, which seeks to represent Amazon fulfillment center workers, said that NLRB typically takes months or longer from the date of a supplemental opposition filing deadline to issue a decision on an unfair labor practice charge.
But that possibility is “sort of a hollow assurance,” Cox said, “and in order to protect our interests we had to assume that as soon as our brief was filed, the NLRB could take action.”
Administrative stay on Amazon case
The district court eventually granted an administrative stay of proceedings in the Amazon case on Sept. 30, a few days after the Sept. 27 deadline, and it ordered that the company’s appeal be expedited.
SpaceX legal dispute
SpaceX faced a similar situation in which the NLRB scheduled a March 5 administrative hearing date for an unfair labor practice charge against the company. It asked a Texas district court for preliminary and injunctive relief to be decided prior to the hearing date, but the case fell to a dispute between the parties regarding a transfer of venues. The March 5 hearing opened without a decision on SpaceX’s request for relief.
SpaceX injunction
SpaceX asked the court to grant relief prior to a May 2 discovery hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge, but it did not receive any indication by April 30. It asked the 5th Circuit for an injunction pending appeal on May 1, which was granted.
SpaceX alleged that the district court effectively denied the company’s request for relief, but during oral arguments, the 5th Circuit seemed similarly skeptical.
“I’m having a hard time seeing why you couldn’t have waited even after the [administrative law judge] issued a discovery order,” Judge Priscilla Richman said in an exchange with counsel for SpaceX. “It’s not like that would’ve been the end of your administrative preceding.”
SpaceX and Amazon concern on case
Amazon and SpaceX raised several claims regarding NLRB’s constitutionality. They have concerns over board’s structure, which Cox said is unlike that of other federal agencies in that it does not require that presidents appoint a certain number of members who are not part of their own political parties. The lack of such a requirement “creates excessive insulation of the NLRB,” differentiating it from other federal agencies.
The two companies also claimed that NLRB’s adjudication of private rights violated their Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.
