HuffPost reports that in their most recent appearance before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), lawyers for Trader Joe’s, charged with defending charges of union-busting, suggested that “the labor board itself, which was created during the New Deal and has refereed private-sector collective bargaining for nearly 90 years, is ‘unconstitutional’.”
It was, the story suggests, indicative of the “sweeping defense” Trader Joe’s “intends to mount against the charges.”
HuffPost writes that “Trader Joe’s is facing a litany of union-busting charges,” as the agency’s prosecutors “have accused the company of illegally retaliating against workers, firing a union supporter and spreading false information in an effort to chill an organizing campaign.”
Trader Joe’s’ attorney Christopher Murphy told the judge, Charles Muhl, that “the National Labor Relations Act as interpreted and/or applied in this matter, including but not limited to the structure and organization of the National Labor Relations Board and the agency’s administrative law judges, is unconstitutional.”
According to the story, “the judge said he would allow” the defense “into the record, but left it at that. ‘I’m certainly not going to be ruling on my own constitutionality anytime soon,’ he said. ‘So you’ll have to take that up with the board and the federal courts’.”
KC’s View:
I’m mostly surprised that other companies dealing with NLRB issues, such as Starbucks, haven’t come up with this defense.
But I’m not really surprised that someone is making this argument. We’re not that far from the moment when somebody actually is going to argue that the US Constitution is unconstitutional.
The post Trader Joe’s Challenges Constitutionality Of NLRB appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
