Appeals from NLRB decisions go to something like eleven different U.S. Courts of Appeal, subjecting the NLRB to conflicting rulings depending upon where particular cases arise.  The law in Ohio can be different from the law in Colorado, despite the fact that both cases have identical facts and are heard before the same NLRB panel interpreting exclusively federal law.  (The NLRB is identical to federal tax court in this regard.)

Neither management nor labor has been eager to resolve this issue by, for example, providing the appeals from the NLRB always go to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, because this would make a loss in a single case instantly have national repurcussions.

The NLRB was created largely at the request of labor because the courts at the time had historically been conservative and anti-labor.  Stripping those courts of jurisdiction over labor-management issues was a key part of the deal in adopting national labor laws.

Unions would be wise to be careful what they wish for, however.  While the NLRB may, at the moment be hand picked to be anti-union, that could change fairly quickly if a new President was elected.  In contrast, the federal courts now are as conservative as the courts were when the NLRB was created, and unlike the NLRB, that isn't likely to change any time soon, because federal court appointments are for life.

The easiest way to prevent anti-union regulations from being adopted would be to enact statutes that clarify the issues where the NLRB has gotten it wrong.  Again, this is something that might be hard to accomplish until a new Presidential election, but that isn't all that far in the future.

Administrative duties could be transferred to the Department of Labor, which would leave more layers of civil service protected employees between political appointees and the people implementing the laws.

But, if unions want to eliminate the NLRB they have to answer the question, what forum would be better?

Appeals from NLRB decisions go to something like eleven different U.S. Courts of Appeal, subjecting the NLRB to conflicting rulings depending upon where particular cases arise.  The law in Ohio can be different from the law in Colorado, despite the fact that both cases have identical facts and are heard before the same NLRB panel interpreting exclusively federal law.  (The NLRB is identical to federal tax court in this regard.)

Neither management nor labor has been eager to resolve this issue by, for example, providing the appeals from the NLRB always go to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, because this would make a loss in a single case instantly have national repurcussions.

The NLRB was created largely at the request of labor because the courts at the time had historically been conservative and anti-labor.  Stripping those courts of jurisdiction over labor-management issues was a key part of the deal in adopting national labor laws.

Unions would be wise to be careful what they wish for, however.  While the NLRB may, at the moment be hand picked to be anti-union, that could change fairly quickly if a new President was elected.  In contrast, the federal courts now are as conservative as the courts were when the NLRB was created, and unlike the NLRB, that isn’t likely to change any time soon, because federal court appointments are for life.

The easiest way to prevent anti-union regulations from being adopted would be to enact statutes that clarify the issues where the NLRB has gotten it wrong.  Again, this is something that might be hard to accomplish until a new Presidential election, but that isn’t all that far in the future.

Administrative duties could be transferred to the Department of Labor, which would leave more layers of civil service protected employees between political appointees and the people implementing the laws.

But, if unions want to eliminate the NLRB they have to answer the question, what forum would be better?