Trader Joe’s is facing allegations of union-busting before the National Labor Relations Board. The company has been accused of unlawfully retaliating against workers, firing a union supporter, and spreading false information to hinder an organizing campaign. In a recent hearing, the grocer’s attorney presented a defense claiming that the labor board itself, established during the New Deal era, is “unconstitutional.” This argument seems to be part of a broader conservative initiative to dismantle regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing laws to protect workers, consumers, and the environment. The exchange occurred at the beginning of a trial to determine whether Trader Joe’s violated workers’ rights. The company’s attorney informed the judge that it intended to add the argument to its defense. The judge allowed it into the record but did not make a ruling on its constitutionality. Trader Joe’s has yet to elaborate on this defense during the trial, but it may be similar to an argument recently made by SpaceX in federal court, another company represented by the same law firm. SpaceX claims that the NLRB violates the constitutional separation of powers and the right to due process. A Trader Joe’s spokesperson did not respond immediately for comment. An attorney for Trader Joe’s United, the union accusing the grocer of illegal retaliation, expressed concern about the mainstreaming of the idea of dismantling the NLRB and questioned whether Trader Joe’s is in agreement with its law firm’s actions. The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency established to protect workers’ rights and promote labor peace. It has a prosecutorial office and a 5-member board to interpret laws related to private sector bargaining. The agency’s constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937, but the current conservative supermajority in the court has been eroding the regulatory state. Both employers and unions have complaints about the NLRB and its processes, but a determination that the board itself is unconstitutional could disrupt labor relations. The attorney for Trader Joe’s United emphasized the danger of a possible return to the conditions of 1920, suggesting that the company’s stance could imply a denial of workers’ right to organize.
