Agri Processor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
379 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 101, 514 F.3d 1 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Undocumented immigrants are considered "employees" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are thus protected by its provisions, including the right to unionize and bargain collectively. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which makes it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers, did not implicitly amend or repeal the NLRA's broad statutory definition of "employee."
Facts:
- Agri Processor Co. is a wholesaler of kosher meat products.
- In September 2005, Agri Processor's workers held an election and voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union.
- Following the election, Agri Processor refused to bargain with the newly formed union.
- The company investigated the Social Security numbers provided by the voting employees through an online database.
- Agri Processor found that most of the numbers were either non-existent or belonged to other individuals, leading the company to conclude that most of the voters were undocumented immigrants.
Procedural Posture:
- The United Food and Commercial Workers union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Agri Processor with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint charging Agri Processor with violating the NLRA.
- A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who rejected Agri Processor's arguments and found the company had committed unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB unanimously adopted the ALJ's recommendations and issued an order requiring Agri Processor to bargain with the union.
- Agri Processor petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for review of the NLRB's order.
- The NLRB cross-petitioned the Court of Appeals for enforcement of its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) define undocumented immigrants as "employees" who are protected by the Act and entitled to vote in union elections, even after the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Tatel, Circuit Judge
Yes. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) defines undocumented immigrants as 'employees' who are protected by the Act. The NLRA's definition of 'employee' is exceptionally broad, and undocumented aliens are not among the few specific exemptions listed in the statute. This interpretation is controlled by the Supreme Court's precedent in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, which held that undocumented aliens plainly fall within the statutory definition. The subsequent passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which made it illegal to hire undocumented workers, did not implicitly repeal or amend the NLRA. Repeals by implication are heavily disfavored and require a 'clear and manifest' congressional intent, which is absent here; in fact, IRCA's legislative history indicates the opposite intent. The Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB only limited certain remedies like backpay for undocumented workers but explicitly left intact the core holding of Sure-Tan that they are statutory employees.
Dissenting - Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge
No. After the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), an undocumented immigrant worker is not an 'employee' under the NLRA. The Supreme Court's reasoning in Sure-Tan was explicitly based on the fact that, at the time, immigration law did not prohibit the employment of undocumented workers. IRCA fundamentally changed this legal landscape by making such employment illegal. Therefore, applying the analytical framework from Sure-Tan to the current legal reality requires the opposite conclusion: since the employment relationship itself is now illegal, the worker cannot be considered an 'employee' for NLRA purposes. The majority's reflexive reliance on the result of Sure-Tan while ignoring the statutory change that underpinned its reasoning flouts congressional will.
Concurring - Henderson, Circuit Judge
Yes. Although the result is 'somewhat peculiar,' precedent compels the conclusion that undocumented immigrants are 'employees' under the NLRA. The dissent correctly highlights that Sure-Tan's reasoning relied heavily on the fact that employing undocumented workers was not illegal at the time, a premise later invalidated by IRCA. However, this court is bound by the Supreme Court's direct holding in Sure-Tan. It is the prerogative of the Supreme Court or Congress, not a lower court, to alter this established precedent. Therefore, the court must follow Sure-Tan's interpretation until it is explicitly overturned or amended.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that federal immigration law and labor law are distinct statutory schemes, and an individual's unauthorized immigration status does not nullify their fundamental protections under the NLRA. It prevents employers from using their workers' immigration status as a justification for refusing to bargain with a certified union, thereby deterring the hiring of undocumented workers as a strategy to undermine unionization efforts. This ruling solidifies the policy rationale that protecting all workers, regardless of status, is necessary to prevent a 'race to the bottom' that would depress wages and working conditions for the entire labor force.
