Pacific Maritime Ass’n v. NLRB

This case arises out of a longstanding jurisdictional dispute between two unions representing workers at Terminal 6 at the Port of Portland. In this appeal, the Board challenges the district court’s ruling that it had subject matter jurisdiction to vacate an interlocutory decision of the Board issued under section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(k). In Leedom v. Kyne, the Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to the rule precluding jurisdiction over Board decisions beyond that provided in section 10(f). While the court was skeptical that the Board's exercise of jurisdiction was proper, the court need not and did not resolve the question. Whether or not the Board’s decision was ultra vires, the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Leedom was improper if PMA had some alternative means to challenge the Board’s section 10(k) decision. In this case, the court concluded that the district court erred in applying Leedom’s second prong because PMA had alternative means available to seek review of the Board’s section 10(k) decision. Because the court concluded that the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction was improper, the court left it to the Board to render a final decision on its own jurisdiction in the first instance. Furthermore, the court concluded that PMA's argument on the basis of NLRB v. Noel Canning fails where it has the opportunity to raise its Noel Canning challenge as an intervenor in the section 8(b)(4)(D) case, or if it later files a petition as an aggrieved person under section 10(f). Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. NLRB" on Justia Law