Another Judge Is Unpersuaded
Obama’s latest rewrite of labor law gets tossed out in court.
Updated Nov. 18, 2016 7:09 p.m. ET
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images
The Obama Administration’s executive overreach received another rebuke on Wednesday, this time from a federal court in Texas. In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Perez, Judge Sam Cummings granted a motion for summary judgment and rejected the Labor Department’s attempt to stack another deck for unions.
The Obama Administration’s “persuader rule,” which was set to go into effect in July, would require a company to disclose any lawyers and consultants it talks to during a unionization campaign. The Administration claims it is merely updating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which requires employers to disclose if they hire someone specifically to talk to their employees during an attempt to unionize.
That’s hilarious because the original law has an “Advice Exemption” that was explicitly designed to carve out legal counsel from the disclosure mandate. In the midst of unionization campaigns, companies are often in close contact with their labor counsel, and rightly so, to ensure they are following the law and to avoid falling into any unfair labor practices. The new disclosure rules were a Labor Department gift to union leaders who figure it might stop some companies from collaborating with allies or lawyers for fear of union retribution.
Judge Cummings found that Labor had violated the law by essentially rewriting it without congressional intent. He issued the order on Wednesday without elaboration, but when he granted a preliminary injunction in June he observed that “[t]he chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.” The Labor Department rule, he wrote, was “defective to its core.” That pretty well covers most of the Obama Administration’s regulatory record.
Obama’s latest rewrite of labor law gets tossed out in court.
Updated Nov. 18, 2016 7:09 p.m. ET
Photo: Getty Images
The Obama Administration’s executive overreach received another rebuke on Wednesday, this time from a federal court in Texas. In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Perez, Judge Sam Cummings granted a motion for summary judgment and rejected the Labor Department’s attempt to stack another deck for unions.
The Obama Administration’s “persuader rule,” which was set to go into effect in July, would require a company to disclose any lawyers and consultants it talks to during a unionization campaign. The Administration claims it is merely updating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which requires employers to disclose if they hire someone specifically to talk to their employees during an attempt to unionize.
That’s hilarious because the original law has an “Advice Exemption” that was explicitly designed to carve out legal counsel from the disclosure mandate. In the midst of unionization campaigns, companies are often in close contact with their labor counsel, and rightly so, to ensure they are following the law and to avoid falling into any unfair labor practices. The new disclosure rules were a Labor Department gift to union leaders who figure it might stop some companies from collaborating with allies or lawyers for fear of union retribution.
Judge Cummings found that Labor had violated the law by essentially rewriting it without congressional intent. He issued the order on Wednesday without elaboration, but when he granted a preliminary injunction in June he observed that “[t]he chilling of speech protected by the First Amendment is in and of itself an irreparable injury.” The Labor Department rule, he wrote, was “defective to its core.” That pretty well covers most of the Obama Administration’s regulatory record.
