Amazon and SpaceX are separately challenging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in court, arguing that the labor watchdog’s processes violate constitutional principles.
The two companies presented their cases on Monday before a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to block ongoing NLRB proceedings that accuse them of unlawful labor practices. However, the judges expressed skepticism about the companies’ legal arguments, particularly regarding the timeliness and procedural aspects of their appeals.
In Amazon’s case, the company is contesting the NLRB’s order to engage in union negotiations at its JFK 8 fulfillment center in Staten Island, New York. SpaceX’s case involves allegations by former employees who claim they were retaliated against for criticizing CEO Elon Musk. Both companies argue that the NLRB’s procedures are unconstitutional, citing concerns about the agency’s structure and its ability to enforce labor laws.
Amazon and SpaceX contend that the NLRB’s administrative law judges (ALJs) hold excessive power, potentially infringing on the separation of powers doctrine. They argue that because these judges have authority over executive, legislative, and judicial matters, their role violates the Constitution. Additionally, Amazon asserts that the NLRB’s actions violate the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases, particularly when it comes to determining financial penalties.
Both companies are seeking to halt the NLRB’s proceedings, arguing that proceeding with the cases would cause them irreparable harm. Amazon’s legal counsel, Trevor Cox, argued that the company needed to appeal swiftly as it felt its request for a temporary restraining order was effectively denied when no ruling was issued on the same day it filed its request.
During the oral arguments, the judges questioned whether both companies had taken the proper steps before bringing their cases to the Fifth Circuit. Judge James Graves Jr. of the Fifth Circuit noted that Amazon’s decision to appeal before receiving a decision from the district court seemed premature.
“It doesn’t seem reasonable to me,” Graves remarked.
The Judge expressed doubt about the company’s urgency in filing for an appeal.
Similarly, the judges raised concerns about SpaceX’s timeline, noting that the company had filed its appeal before the NLRB hearing even started. SpaceX’s counsel, Michael Kenneally, argued that the company had waited as long as it could to challenge the proceedings but was ultimately forced to act before the lower court’s ruling.
In response, the NLRB’s legal team pushed for the dismissal of both appeals, arguing that neither company had demonstrated the kind of immediate harm required to justify bypassing the NLRB’s process. NLRB General Counsel Tyler Wiese argued that Amazon had waited years before raising its constitutional concerns and that proceeding with the NLRB’s administrative process would not constitute irreparable harm.
The NLRB’s stance is that the constitutional issues raised by Amazon and SpaceX have already been settled by previous court rulings, particularly a 1937 Supreme Court decision upholding the National Labor Relations Act. Wiese emphasized that the agency had been handling labor law violations for decades, despite periodic challenges from large companies seeking to avoid accountability.
If the Fifth Circuit were to rule in favor of Amazon and SpaceX, it could significantly weaken the NLRB’s ability to enforce labor protections, potentially making it more difficult for workers to challenge unfair labor practices. The NLRB has faced challenges in the past from large corporations, but a favorable ruling for these companies could have broader implications for labor law enforcement under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.
As of now, it is unclear when the Fifth Circuit will issue a decision, but the court’s questioning suggests it may be inclined to dismiss the companies’ appeals. Despite the legal challenges, the NLRB remains committed to its role in protecting workers’ rights, with General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo noting that these kinds of challenges typically lead to delays, but justice ultimately prevails.
With input from the Verge and the Register.
