Lawsuit, new legislation aims at Obama’s NLRB recess appointments
January 19, 2012 by Tim GouldPosted in: Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Management
Opponents of President Obama’s recent recess appointments of members of the National Labor Relations Board are marshalling their forces.
First, there’s the National Right to Work Foundation’s lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., which argues that since the Senate wasn’t actually in recess — members were meeting on a “pro forma” basis to continue this year’s session — Obama had no right to make the appointments on a unilateral basis.
Then comes two proposals in the House of Representatives. One, introduced by Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) and co-sponsored by 20 other Republicans, would gut the authority of not just the NLRB, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The bill, H.R. 3770, would limit the powers of each board to operate if they’re headed by appointees who were recess-appointed when the Senate was technically in session, according to a story by Pete Kasperowicz on thehill.com.
The bill proposes: “No rule, order or other administrative action shall be considered final if the director was appointed during a recess of the Senate and the position of director was vacant while the Senate was in session, until the director has been confirmed by the Senate.”
In other House action, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) put forward a resolution — H.Res. 509 – to condemn the recess appointments.
Tags: H.R. 3770, H.Res. 509, National Labor Relations Board, National Right to Work Foundation, NLRB, recess appointments
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:51 pm
To be well informed you should read the other side of the story. The republicans were using their usual obstructionist methods to prevent appointments for their own political reasons.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/22/white-house-justifies-recess-appointments-but-leaves-many-boards-unfilled/
“The White House justified the appointments on grounds that Republicans were holding up the nominations to paralyze the two agencies. The consumer protection agency was established under the 2010 Wall Street reform law, which requires the bureau to have a director in order to begin policing financial products such as mortgages, checking accounts, credit cards and payday loans.
During the break, Republicans forced the Senate to convene for usually less than a minute once every few days to argue that there was no recess and that Obama therefore couldn’t bypass the Senate’s authority to confirm top officials. The administration said this was a sham, and has released a Justice Department opinion backing up the legality of the appointments.”
January 30th, 2012 at 11:16 am
At last check the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. Just because the executive doesn’t like what the Senate is doing does not give them the power or authority to bypass them. When you do a study of the origins of recess appointments you find that originally the Senate could be in recess for 6 to 9 months at a time and recess appointments were necessary; if the vacancy occurred during the recess. Since the early 1800s this power has been abused and not held in check as many vacancies occur while the Senate is in session. We have a system of checks and balances that keeps the executive from having too much power. Our system needs to be restored even if it means occasional grid lock.
January 30th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
For four years the republican agenda has been to block everything. I applaud President Obama for taking action.
February 1st, 2012 at 12:47 pm
@H2r. Let see if I got this right, as I want to be “well informed” like you. I think to be “well informed we need a little historical perspective. I just happen to know that Harry Reid created the Pro Forma rule during the Bush admin. At that time, Senator Obama happily voted for it. (presumably, because it was the right thing to do) Obama also voted with Harry Reid in 2008/2009 when they were blocking Bush appointee’s (again, because it was the right thing to do).
Now that the “Pro Forma” rule has been enacted by the Democrats, the Republicans decide to utilize the rule themselves. But wait just one minute… that can not be tolerated. Obama decides that the rule should not apply to him when he is president, so he makes the polarizing controversial agenda driven appointments anyway. How can he justify such an act. Aah yes, as to no surprise to anyone, Obama calls Eric Holder and his buddies at the DOJ to manufacture a defense of Obama’s actions. Holder and Obama essentially argue the “Pro Forma” rules are a sham (yes, the very same rules Obama voted for just a couple years earlier are now a sham) and that it’s up to President, not Congress, to decide whether Congress is or is not in session. If it was not so sad and serious it would be funny.
The words that ooze from this administration are dripping with double talk and hypocrisy. Yet, biased and/or un-”well informed” liberals everywhere “applaud President Obama for taking action”.