The Firm Engaged Primarily In The Practice Of Labor Law, Numbering Among Its Clients Various AFL-CIO
The decision of the Board in Bodle, Fogel, Julber, Reinhardt and Rothschild, 206 NLRB 512 {1973), (herein Bodle), relied upon by the Regional Director in his dismissal, is particularly germane to the present case. The Bodle decision concerned a California law firm composed of five partners and seven associates. The firm engaged primarily In the practice of labor law, numbering among its clients various AFL-CIO affiliated local and international unions and other concerns which engaged in interstate commerce. Gross revenues of the firm were stipulated to be in excess of $500,000 of which at least $50,000 was received from clients which meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. In its majority decision the Board unequivocally stated:
The Employer contends that its operations are essentially local in nature and that any impact its operations might have on interstate commerce Is remote and therefore insufficient to warrant the assertion of the Board's jurisdiction. We agree with the Employer's contention. 206 NLRB at 512. The Board footnoted the above statement, adding: In view of this conclusion, we need not consider the Employer's alternate grounds for dismissing the petition, namely that the Petitioner has a direct conflict of interest with the Employer's AFL-CIO affiliated clients and that the employees sought by the petition are confidential employees because they are privy to the Employer's privileged attorney-client communications. 206 NLRB at 512 n.2.
Because, therefore, the professionally legal nature of the work of the profession makes minimal the degree of impact on interstate commerce of potential labor disputes between law firms and their employees, and because there are serious policy and administrative problems suggesting the undesirability and unfeasibility of any attempt on our part to assert Jurisdiction over lawyers and law firms, it is our present determination that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by our assertion of Jurisdiction over law firms. 206 NLRB at 514. Respondent argues from Bodle that the present case does not satisfy the requirements of Section 14(c) of the NLRA and therefore we are barred from asserting jurisdiction. Respondent reasons that Section 14(c) is inapplicable because (1) the NLRB has not yet declined jurisdiction over all law firms as a class; (2) the NLRB's failure to assert jurisdiction over law firms is not solely because of the insubstantial effect on commerce; and (3) the NLRB would have asserted jurisdiction if it followed its August 1, 1959 standards.
Contact Cleveland lawyers
now and obtain a free case evaluation.
| |
 Did You Know? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Mediation may not be the most appropriate avenue for resolution in all cases.
For example, it may not be appropriate in cases where: A definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required; The matter involves or may bear upon significant questions of Government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution may be made; Maintaining established policies that apply to many people is especially important; The matter significantly affects persons or groups who are not parties to the process; A full public record of the proceeding is important; or The agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in light of changed circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
