English: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member William S. Leiserson (left), Chairman J. Warren Madden, and Member Edwin S. Smith (right) during testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board (the “Smith Committee”) on December 22, 1939, in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the NLRB’s rule requiring employers to post an employee rights poster informing employees of their rights under the NLRA to unionize, among other things, violated employers’ free speech rights and was, therefore, unlawful. National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 12-5068, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2013).
We therefore conclude that the Board’s rule violates § 8(c) because it makes an employer’s failure to post the Board’s notice an unfair labor practice, and because it treats such a failure as evidence of anti-union animus in cases involving, for example, unlawfully motivated firings or refusals to hire—in other words, because it treats such a failure as evidence of an unfair labor practice.19 See Brown & Root, Inc. v. NLRB, 333 F.3d 628, 637–39 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2003).
Slip Op. at 23. You can read the decision here.
California Employment Lawyer 
[…] rights poster informing employees of their rights under the NLRA to unionize, among other things. National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 12-5068, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2013). The court reasoned that the rule violated […]