Home Page   My Sky Valley   Advertising   Contact Us   Privacy Policy   About Us   Terms of Use 
Register Here

Log In

Thu, September 20, 2018

"The #1 Read & Rated Sky Valley News Source
& Only Daily Paper in the Sky Valley!"


RSS Feeds
Everett, WATemp: 57°FSky: overcastForecast...



The Continued Assault On Labor
How Trump NLRB appointee used ‘side door’ that helped his old law firm eradicate worker rights friendly precedents

January 25, 2018

CLICK TO ENLARGE. Dust jacket to first book that contained systematic study of strikebreaking, intimidation and anti-unionism in the United States. By Stephen Harand Norwood, Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2002 (328 pages)
The Continued Assault On American Labor:<br> <i>How Trump Admn

Trump NLRB Appointee William Emanuel has recused himself from ruling on disputes involving his former law firm’s clients — but then used unrelated cases as vehicles to help Republican colleagues accomplish the same thing.

By Ian MacDougall, ProPublica

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)  --  A Trump administration appointee to the National Labor Relations Board benefited the interests and clients of his former law firm when he cast the deciding vote to undo rules protecting workers’ rights in two cases last month.

The decisions, which were both resolved 3-to-2, are instances of what some former NLRB members describe as a side-door means of evading government ethics requirements — a way to do indirectly what conflict of interest rules prevent the appointee from doing directly.

William Emanuel, who joined the NLRB in September, has recused himself from involvement in more than four dozen cases involving the firm he left to join the labor board.

That firm, Littler Mendelson, is known for representing corporations in labor disputes. Littler was not representing any parties in the disputes that Emanuel helped resolve in December.

The law firm had argued, in public filings, for the elimination of precedents in three cases pending before the NLRB. All three involved a widely discussed issue in the labor world and a legal position that Littler was known to espouse. Emanuel recused himself from all three cases.

But he took unusual steps that benefited Littler’s clients indirectly.

How Littler was able to do what he did

To understand how Emanuel accomplished that, a brief primer on the NLRB is necessary: The board often functions like a court, with its five members — currently three Republicans and two Democrats — adjudicating labor disputes between companies and their workers. Legal bodies like the NLRB typically resolve only those issues argued by the parties involved in the dispute.

What’s unusual is that, in the two instances last month, Emanuel and his two fellow Republican members raised precedents that had not been at issue in the case they were voting on. No party had asked the NLRB to overrule the precedents, and the board never asked the parties or the public to address the question.

The moves raised hackles among Democratic NLRB members. One of the latter, Lauren McFerran, accused the Republican majority of overruling precedent “entirely on its own initiative,” a move she called “suspect.”

Some former NLRB members criticized Emanuel. “It looks bad,” said Wilma Liebman, a Democratic board member in the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations. “It looks like a rush to judgment, and the absence of a deliberative process, and a purely results-driven process — and possibly a conflict.”

Former Obama NLRB member Sharon Block agreed. “Deciding a case in a way the parties didn’t ask you to decide it seems to me inevitably to raise the question: Why are you doing this?” said Block, who now heads the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. “Emanuel having clients that actually had made that request — at the very least that creates a huge appearance problem.”

Marshall Babson, a former Democratic board member who now represents companies in labor matters, defended Emanuel. Even when a legal issue arises in a case where an NLRB member has a conflict, he said, “you’re not precluded from deciding a similar issue in another case that you’re not recused from.” Otherwise, Babson observed, there would be an unworkable number of recusals: Too many prospective board members — typically prominent labor lawyers for unions or corporations — would be recused from too many cases involving hot-button labor law issues.

No Comment On Far Reaching Decision

Emanuel referred questions to an agency spokesperson, who declined to comment. A Littler spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The cases in which Emanuel’s vote helped his old law firm eradicated labor-friendly precedents governing workplace rules and company responsibility for labor law violations of its franchise holders and contractors. The consequences are expected to be — and in some cases already are — far-reaching.

The December rulings were part of a rush of decisions in the week before the end of Republican Chairman Philip Miscimarra’s tenure on the labor board, and the precedents Littler objected to had long been in Miscimarra’s crosshairs, too.

But until Emanuel joined the NLRB, Miscimarra didn’t have enough votes to overturn them.

The Ethics Issue

Like most executive branch officials, Emanuel signed an ethics pledge upon taking office. The pledge includes conflict of interest rules, which preclude participating in cases where a former client or employer is a party or represents one.

Indeed, Emanuel has recused himself from cases in which his old law firm represents a company in a labor dispute with an employee or union, he explained in response to questions from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

That’s why, on the face of it, Emanuel’s participation in the December cases doesn’t implicate conflict of interest rules; Littler wasn’t involved in them.

How Uber Benefitted From 'Side Door' Method

But a close look at them shows how Emanuel’s votes helped his old firm’s clients. In one case involving the aircraft manufacturer Boeing, Emanuel voted to make it harder for workers to show that ostensibly neutral workplace rules interfere in practice with their right to organize.

That decision overturned a 13-year-old precedent, one that none of the parties had attempted to end.

But Littler attorneys, on behalf of clients such as Uber — in cases in which Emanuel is not participating — had asked the board to do precisely that: Reverse the precise workplace-rule precedent at issue.

Littler clients in several other pending cases in which Emanuel cannot participate also stand to benefit from the NLRB’s Boeing decision.

Littler has made its positions known elsewhere, too, including in federal appeals courts, which can review board decisions. In one such case Littler attorneys asked an appeals court to reject the Obama NLRB’s so-called joint-employer rule, which made it easier for workers to hold a parent company liable for the unfair labor practices of its franchisees and other companies with which it has a relationship.

Emanuel and his fellow Republican board members overruled the Obama joint-employer rule in a second case they decided in December, though no party had asked them to do so.

Critics say Emanuel and the Republican majority have also taken other shortcuts in overturning NLRB precedents — five in December alone, including the cases above — such as reaching a decision before all the normal procedural steps have been taken.

Ultimately, the ethics of Emanuel’s participation are ambiguous, former members say, in part because similarly close calls simply didn’t arise during their tenures. “Those fine points of recusal policy didn’t come up, because nobody got that close,” said Block. “I don’t remember there being any hard questions, because we just drew a bright line.”


Ian MacDougall is a senior reporting fellow at ProPublica.

This report originally ran at ProPublica and is reprinted here with permission. ProPublica is a non-profit news platform that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

ProPublica was a recipient of the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for public service, the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting, the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting and a 2010 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. 

On April 10, 2017 ProPublica and the New York Daily News won the Pulitzer Prize for public service, honoring their joint investigation on abuses in the New York City Police Department’s enforcement of the nuisance abatement law. The award was the fourth Pulitzer Prize for ProPublica and the 11th for the Daily News.

Information presented in the above report is the product of ProPublica's reporting and does not necessarily represent the views of the staff or management of the Sky Valley Chronicle.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js" async="true"></script>





Story Tags: Labor laws, worker rights, unions, Trump administration, NLRB, William Emanuel, Littler Mendelson law firm, ethics, conflict of interest rules, NLRB precedents     



More Headlines

Memo to Kavanaugh’s
Congressional Defenders
Passage of time doesn’t erase youthful “mistakes” for people of color
The Vote
Are you sure yours has not
already been stolen?
Three Big Lessons Not Learned From America’s Economic Crash
Did Brett Kavanaugh Say On National TV He Would Kill Roe v. Wade
And did no one notice?
Edmonds, WA Police Are
Looking For This Man




© 2008-2018 Sky Valley Media Group, LLC
www.skyvalleychronicle.com is owned and produced by
Sky Valley Media Group, LLC which is solely responsible for its content