National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23

Background

A union filed unfair labor practice charges against a grocery-store owner and another union, and a regional investigator later issued a formal complaint. Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the regional director and the charged parties reached an informal settlement that the charging union refused to join. The General Counsel reviewed the union’s challenge, sustained the settlement, and the union asked a federal court of appeals to review that decision.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether federal courts can review the General Counsel’s dismissal of a complaint that resulted from a post-complaint, prehearing informal settlement. It concluded that Congress, in the amended National Labor Relations Act, split prosecutorial functions (for the General Counsel) from adjudicatory functions (for the Board). Because the General Counsel’s prehearing settlement decision is prosecutorial, it is not an order “of the Board” subject to review under the Act. The Court also held that the Administrative Procedure Act cannot be used as a fallback to sue in district court, because the NLRA’s comprehensive review scheme shows Congress intended to preclude such APA review.

Real world impact

The ruling preserves the Board’s regulatory structure by stopping courts from second-guessing many informal, prehearing settlements. That outcome helps keep fast, negotiated resolutions available but limits a charging party’s ability to obtain immediate judicial review or force an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and ordered dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by three colleagues, wrote separately to stress that the decision follows the established Chevron framework, deferring to reasonable agency interpretations.