Labor — standing

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Labor — standing

Although workers are correct that it was unlawful for their union to require them to annually renew their Beck objections, they lack standing to bring action on behalf of other employees who did not file annual objections.

“We need not decide whether the term ‘aggrieved’ in the NLRA refers to anyone who suffers an ‘injury-in-fact’ for Article III purposes or refers to something narrower. Even if the more generous requirements of Article III standing governed the definition of that term, Petitioners have not themselves suffered any injury-in-fact from the NLRB decisions. Petitioners either renewed their objections annually under protest or were never required to renew their objections at all, and so their only injury was the burden or threat of having to renew their objections year after year. In August 2011 when the NLRB ordered the unions to no longer enforce their annual renewal policies, that burden was lifted and the threat was removed. That decision is not being appealed by the unions. Petitioners themselves simply suffered no injuries from the Board decisions that could be remedied on appeal, and so they lack standing to bring the instant petitions for review. See, e.g., Pirlott v. NLRB, 522 F.3d 423, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘There is nothing in the Board’s decision that resulted in a cognizable injury to the Charging Parties sufficient to support a showing of aggrievement under [§ 160(f)].’).”

Dismissed.

12-1973 & 12-1984 Richards v. NLRB

On Petitions for Review of Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Board, Williams, J.