The Buckeye Institute Challenges NLRB's Influence on Courts
Columbus, OH – On Wednesday, The Buckeye Institute raised concerns about the influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on court decisions, specifically in the case of Starbucks v. McKinney. The institute filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a more balanced approach when granting preliminary injunctions.
"When the National Labor Relations Board sues a private company, the government should not get special treatment on its request for a preliminary injunction," emphasized David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute.
Tryon further criticized the Sixth Circuit's decision to grant the government's request for a preliminary injunction in the case, stating, "The proper standard—according to centuries of court practice—is to employ equity and consider the harms to both the company and its employees."
The Buckeye Institute's brief advocates for a comprehensive evaluation of the situation in Starbucks v. McKinney. It suggests that the court should consider factors such as the likelihood of success on the merits, the potential for irreparable harm without preliminary relief, the balance of equities, and the public interest before making a decision on the injunction.
By emphasizing the importance of a fair and balanced approach in legal proceedings, The Buckeye Institute aims to ensure that both employers and employees are considered when determining the necessity of a preliminary injunction.