JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Democratic Party, in a court brief filed Friday, said the National Labor Relations Board “seeks to provoke a constitutional confrontation†by pursuing action against a political party stemming from an employment dispute.
“In the eighty-six (86) years since Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board (‘the Board’) has never asserted jurisdiction over a political party,†lawyers for the Democrats said in their brief.
The case has potentially wide-ranging repercussions as Democratic Party staffs across the country unionize.
In September, the board issued a complaint against the state party for allegedly violating federal labor law by firing ex-data director Ben Conover and “discouraging membership in a labor organization.â€
People are also reading…
The board issues complaints if opposing sides are unable to reach an agreement in a meritorious case, according to the NLRB . The board says “every effort is made†to reach a settlement if a claim has merit.
The complaint says the Missouri Democratic Party fits the definition of an employer subject to the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act.
A hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. on Dec. 7 before an NLRB administrative law judge.
Attorneys for the Missouri Democrats argue the complaint should be dismissed because asserting jurisdiction would overstep the NLRB’s authority and because moving forward would violate the First Amendment “because it would represent governmental interference with political speech.â€
The filing says even if the board could assert jurisdiction, it shouldn’t “because of the likelihood that its involvement with political parties would create the appearance of improper interference, and compromise the Board’s neutrality.â€
Conover said Monday the party’s filing in the case appears to contradict its pro-union stance.
“The Missouri Democratic Party, in making this motion, is actively seeking to disenfranchise state party workers,†Conover said.
“If a judge found in their favor this would mean that state party workers would not have the protections of the NLRB,†he said. “That goes against the party’s purported support of labor.â€
Attorneys for the Democrats, Jeffrey Place and Trecia Moore, say Conover was fired “because his political activities created a conflict of interest with his duties for†the Missouri Democratic Party.
“MDP has responded to a charge that it allegedly terminated a Charging Party’s employment due to his support of a labor organization by asserting that it actually discharged him due to a political conflict of interest,†the party said.
“The very act of considering the General Counsel’s allegation and MDP’s defense will entangle the Board in assessing the validity of Respondent’s political decisions, potentially treading upon MPD’s (sic) rights under the First Amendment,†the brief said.
Conover declined to comment on the party’s stated reason for firing him due to the ongoing litigation.
The motion to dismiss goes on to say that imposing the National Labor Relations Act on political parties “would create a very real potential for mischief. The composition of the Board is determined, at least in part, by the political party affiliation of the sitting President.
“To ask members of the Board to adjudicate a complaint against their own party or against the opposition party would invite abuse of the Board’s processes and discretion, and might give the impression of politically motivated decisions,†the filing said.
“The Board’s unprecedented assertion of jurisdiction would radically expand the scope of the Act beyond any conceivable intent given by Congress,†the filing said.
“Counsel for the General Counsel seeks to provoke a constitutional confrontation by issuing a complaint against Respondent, a political party,†the filing said.
The five-member NLRB three members originally appointed under Democratic presidents, giving the party a narrow majority.
