A Win For Employers – Supreme Court Rules On NLRB Injunctions

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision today in Starbucks Corp. v. M. Kathleen McKinney, providing an important clarification on the standard a federal court should use when considering a “10(j) injunction” request from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). The Court ruled that requests for injunctions from the NLRB should be analyzed under the same standard applied to other requests for injunctions.  

While an NLRB complaint is pending and before a judge finds a legal violation has occurred, the Board can seek a 10(j) injunction to “temporarily” remedy alleged unfair labor practices until such time as the Board’s administrative proceedings are concluded (which often takes years). While 10(j) injunctive relief was traditionally reserved for the most egregious cases, the Board’s current General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, decided it should be regularly used. 

In the Starbucks case, the Board sought a 10(j) injunction to require the company to reinstate several employees the Board believed were unlawfully discharged. In granting the Board’s request, the federal trial court applied a two-part test that asks whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice occurred and whether injunctive relief is just and proper. 

The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that Board injunction cases should be analyzed the same as any other request for a preliminary injunction. Because injunctions are an “extraordinary remedy,” a higher burden of proof must be satisified. The traditional test used for preliminary injunctions requires a plaintiff to clearly show that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; (3) the balance of equities tip in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. The Supreme Court rejected the two-part reasonable cause standard used by the lower court which “substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities.” Absent clear direction from Congress for such a lower burden of proof, federal courts must instead adhere to the traditional four-part test. 

Injunctions are extremely burdensome and detrimental to employers, especially those in the midst of union organizing campaigns. It does not take much for the Board to find a violation of the National Labor Relations Act these days. As it continues to aggressively seek 10(j) injunctions to remedy these alleged violations, employers need close and careful scrutiny of injunction requests by reviewing courts.

Today’s Supreme Court decision in Starbucks v. McKinney provides employers with much-needed assistance in slowing down the NLRB’s runaway train approach in these cases.

If you have questions about this case or 10(j) injunctions, please contact a KZA attorney. 

KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.