Legal Perspectives on Managing Unionized Workforces®

The Bargaining Table

Home | The Bargaining Table

The tide may be turning against any state law attempting to supplant the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). As we’ve <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/preemption-what-preemption-new-york-bill-attempts-to-supplant-the-nlrb/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">previously written</a>, a number of states, beginning with New York, have proposed or passed legislation designed to authorize state labor boards to step in and exercise the NLRB’s powers whenever the Board is unable to act due to the lack of a quorum. Now the flagship state for these efforts has suffered its first setback.

core/paragraph

core/heading

When President Donald Trump fired Board member Gwyne Wilcox, the NLRB was left in a precarious position without a quorum. With only two of its five members appointed, the Board could not issue decisions regarding union representation petitions or unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. Wilcox has challenged her removal, arguing it violated the Board’s “for cause” protections, but the Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal for now in Trump v. Wilcox, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (2025). The lack of a quorum became more pronounced when former Chairman Marvin Kaplan stepped aside at the conclusion of his term on Aug. 27, leaving David Prouty as the sole member. While Trump has nominated two new members – James Murphy and Scott Mayer – to the Board, which would restore the quorum, they have yet to be confirmed.

&nbsp;In the meantime, New York moved forward with its NLRB Trigger Bill. The bill empowers New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to assume the NLRB’s jurisdiction, including authority over representation and ULP cases, and even imposes timelines for contract negotiations with potential mediator-imposed agreements.

On Sept. 15, the Amazon Labor Union No. 1 International Brotherhood of Teamsters (ALU) took advantage of this bill by filing a ULP charge against Amazon with the PERB instead of the NLRB. Traditionally, the ALU’s workers would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. Following receipt of the charge, Amazon filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted any state’s attempt to regulate this arena. See Amazon.com Services LLC v. N.Y. St. Pub. Emp. Rel. Bd., Case No. 1:25-cv-5311 (EK) (MMH)(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025). Amazon filed the lawsuit several days after the <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/preemption-you-again-new-jersey-moves-to-ban-captive-audience-meetings-as-the-nlrb-initiates-its-counterattack-on-recent-state-labor-statutes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NLRB filed a lawsuit</a> in the Northern District of New York seeking to enjoin PERB. National Labor Relations Board v. State of New York et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01283-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y Sept. 12, 2025).

Why Did the Court Rule in Favor of Amazon?

On Nov. 26, the court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the NLRB Trigger Law. <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/preemption-what-preemption-new-york-bill-attempts-to-supplant-the-nlrb/">As predicted</a>, the law had some major preemption issues. The court relied heavily on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), which holds that if an activity is even “arguably” subject to the NLRA, both state and federal courts must defer to the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The ALU argued that the “unique circumstances” of the Board lacking a quorum and the threat to the Board members for cause removal protection for Wilcox justify the NLRB Trigger Law. The district court pushed back, stating that “unique circumstances” cannot justify a law in clear contradiction of Supreme Court precedent. The court held that even if the NLRB declines to assert its jurisdiction over an activity, under Garmon, state and local laws still are preempted with respect to that activity. Similarly, the court found that pending challenges to the removal protections for Board members had not created a “unique circumstances” objection because the Supreme Court has not given a final ruling on those protections. Given Amazon’s likelihood of success on the merits and the irreparable harm it would suffer from PERB enforcement, the court granted the injunction.

While the injunction is a promising start for employers, they should continue to monitor any attempts to supplant the Board. There have been various states, including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, that have either proposed or enacted similar legislation. The BakerHostetler Labor Relations team will continue to closely monitor these developments and their impacts on employers.

Turning the Tide on the NLRB Trigger Bill: Preemption Prevails (for Now) Over New York