Majestic Weaving Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Administrative Law

Administrative LawLabor LawInterventionNLRBinterventionSection 10(e)Section 10(f)private right

Facts

The Board sought enforcement of an order against Majestic based on a complaint alleging, among other things, that Majestic had illegally assisted Local 815, entered into an invalid union security contract with it, and later refused to bargain with the Textile Workers after that union presented evidence of majority status. The Board reversed its Trial Examiner and ordered Majestic to cease recognizing Local 815, to give no force or effect to the collective bargaining agreement with Local 815, and to stop refusing to bargain with the Textile Workers. Local 815 had filed an answer under the Board's rules and had been treated as if it were a respondent except that no order ran against it. The order would deprive Local 815 of a valuable contract right unless the contract's illegality was upheld.

Issue

Whether Local 815 could intervene in the NLRB's enforcement proceeding against Majestic. More specifically, the question was whether Local 815 had a sufficient interest to intervene where the Board's order effectively impaired the union's contract rights even though the order did not formally run against it.

Rule

A nonparty union may intervene in an NLRB enforcement proceeding when the Board's order creates a sufficient risk of harm to the union's private rights, such as by effectively invalidating a valuable contract right, and when allowing intervention serves the rational administration of the Act by enabling a single judgment on the contract's validity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The labor board petitions a federal court in Chicago to enforce an order against Lakefront Plastics, an Illinois manufacturer. The order requires Lakefront to stop giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with Riverbend Drivers Union, a union omitted from the original charge, although Riverbend filed an answer in the agency case and participated throughout.

Should the court most likely permit Riverbend Drivers Union to intervene in the enforcement proceeding?

Explanation. Intervention is proper where the agency order creates a sufficient risk of harm to the movant’s private rights, such as by effectively invalidating a valuable contract right, and where the movant was treated in practical effect like a respondent. The majority emphasized that formal omission from the charge was not controlling when the order denied the union a contract right and a single judgment would rationally resolve the contract’s validity. It expressly did not require deciding whether the union was independently an aggrieved person entitled to its own review petition. (Derived from Majestic Weaving Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)