The case of National Labor Relations Board v. was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2013. The first party in the case was The National Labor Relations Board, which is an independent federal agency that oversees employees' rights as it related to union organizing. The NLRB also protects against unfair labor practices by employers and labor unions ("NLRB," n.d.). The second party was Noel Canning, a Pepsi distributor ("NLRB v. NOEL CANNING," 2014). The case study for this paper will discuss the importance of this decision for business and evaluate the key judicial concepts that influenced the decision. .
Background.
In 2010, Pepsi distributor Noel Canning was involved with negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760. Both parties had a disagreement during negotiations when the collective bargaining agreement had to be signed. The union filed an unfair labor practice to the National Labor Relations Board. When the case was tried, the administrative law judge presiding over the case ruled in favor of the union in the dispute and ordered Noel Canning to sign the collective bargaining agreement. The case was appealed to the NLRB, and they upheld the administrative law judge's decision. Noel Canning immediately appealed their case to the U.S Court of Appeals with the argument that the National Labor Relations Board's ruling was invalid since they did not have enough members on the board to make a ruling. The board had two members on it that was appointed by President Barack Obama without Senate confirmation while the Senate was not in session. The President can make recess appointments, but the argument was the Senate was not in recess and the appointments were invalid. The U.S Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Noel Canning, and the case was then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court by the National Labor Relations Board ("Facts of the Case," 2014). .
Argument.
