SPRINGFIELD — Loren Cook Company is suing the National Labor Relations Board, alleging its constitutionality.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the NLRB's administrative procedures, arguing that its structure violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution, according to a complaint filed Sept. 25 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri-Southern Division.
"Neither the Eighth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has decided whether the NLRB Members’ layer of removal protection is unconstitutional. But the correct answer, given the relevant Supreme Court precedent, the nature of the NLRB Members’ functions, and the NLRB’s unique structure and statute, is a resounding yes," the complaint states.
LCC is currently involved in an NLRB case related to a dispute with United Steelworkers Local Union 15485, but the company claims the board’s authority is unconstitutional due to improper oversight by the President.
LCC's argument centers on the removal protections for the NLRB’s administrative law judges.
According to the lawsuit, the ALJs, who preside over labor disputes, have two layers of protection from removal, which insulates them from the president's authority.
This, the company claims, violates the separation of powers outlined in Article II, which vests executive power in the president, who must have the authority to remove officials who assist in enforcing laws.
LCC argues that the NLRB is now undermining both presidential authority and accountability within the administrative state.
In its complaint, LCC is requesting the court to declare that the removal protections for both NLRB ALJs and members of the board are unconstitutional.
It also seeks an injunction to prevent the NLRB from proceeding with the case under its current structure.
The company claims that if it is forced to undergo an administrative proceeding under an unconstitutional system, it would face irreparable harm, as any adverse ruling would likely be difficult to reverse.
"Yet, unless the NLRB is enjoined from proceeding against LCC before an NLRB whose Members are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential oversight, LCC will be irreparably harmed," the complaint states. "Further, if the NLRB Members, on recommendation from the ALJ, issue a final order against LCC, the harm will likely be irremediable because of the difficulty of obtaining retrospective redress for an unconstitutional proceeding by improperly insulated administrative agency officials."
LCC argues that the protections afforded to NLRB members are unusually strict, limiting their removal to instances of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, a standard LCC claims is insufficient given their substantial executive power.
"The harm to LCC, in the event declaratory and injunctive relief is not granted, far outweighs any harm, or mere inconvenience, to the NLRB if such relief is granted," the complaint states. "The grant of injunctive and declaratory relief on this claim will serve the public interest by protecting Americans’ constitutional rights."
LCC is seeking the court to enjoin the defendants from carrying on the unconstitutional removal-protection provisions. LCC is represented by Robert D. Younger and Rex P. Fennessey of McMahon Berger in St. Louis.
The attorneys declined to comment on the matter.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri-Southern Division case number: 6:24-cv-3277