Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—D.D.C.: Grocery chain denied preliminary relief against pending ULP proceedings as ‘unlawful’, (Nov 20, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The underlying dispute involved “the terms and conditions” of certain employees, such that the employer’s suit “involves or grows out” of a labor dispute for purposes of the NLGA.

Under the terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, a grocery chain was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring the NLRB from proceeding with pending unfair labor practice changes, ruled a federal district court in the District of Columbia. The employer sued the NLRB and several of its officers, alleging that its pending unfair labor practices proceeding against it is unlawful. To start, the employer had not identified any of its “property” that would be substantially and irreparably injured without an injunction. That alone was enough to conclude that it cannot satisfy the NLGA. Further, the employer’s challenge to the appointment of the Acting General Counsel failed at least the first two Thunder Basin factors and so fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the court lacked jurisdiction over the employer’s claim that it would suffer irreparable harm if “ordered to pay... impermissible and unconstitutional consequential damages” in alleged violation of its Seventh Amendment rights (Hannam Chain USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 25-2896 (TJK) (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 2025)).

Union election. Between June 2022 and September 2023, a labor union seeking to represent the employer’s employees filed four unfair labor practices (ULP) charges against the employer with the Board. In February 2023, the union petitioned to represent employees at a particular store location and, in October of that year, an election ensued. In December 2023, the Board determined that the union had lost the election.

In May 2025, the Board filed an administrative complaint against the employer, alleging that the company had threatened and retaliated against its employees for supporting union activities and advocating for better pay, hours, and working conditions in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. As relief, the complaint sought “payment for lost hours and/or restoration of leave/vacation taken as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct” and “all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.” The employer answered the ULP complaint in June 2025.

Employer claims. In August 2025, the employer sued the NLRB and several of its officers. Its amended complaint brought four claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Count I alleged that the acting General Counsel’s appointment violated the NLRA and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) and so his actions, including bringing the NLRB’s complaint, are void. Count II alleged that the ALJs’ statutory dual for-cause removal protections violate the Appointments Clause and both render their appointments unlawful and the agency’s proceedings structurally unconstitutional. Count III alleged that because the ALJs are in fact freely removable by the President under the Constitution, the employer will be deprived of due process if forced to submit to a proceeding in which both the judges and prosecutors are answerable to the President. Count IV alleged that if the NLRB seeks legal—rather than equitable—relief against it, including compensatory damages, that violates its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. On September 19, 2025, the employer moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the NLRB hearing.

Norris-LaGuardia Act bar on preliminary injunction. At the outset, the court had to decide whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), barred the requested preliminary injunction. Here, the court concluded that it does. The NLGA strips district courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions in cases involving or growing out of a “labor dispute,” unless the complainant can satisfy the specific conditions set forth in §§ 107—108 of the statute, one of which is to demonstrate that it will suffer “substantial and irreparable injury to [its] property” absent an injunction. In this instance, the court concluded that this case grows out of a “labor dispute” under the NLGA.

Moreover, an injunction could not satisfy §§ 107—108 of the statute because the employer failed to show that “substantial and irreparable injury to [its] property” will occur without it. Finally, the dispute did not fall within one of the two judicially created exceptions to the NLGA. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to order an injunction.

Labor dispute. The NLGA provides that no district court “shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity” with the statute. Under the Act, “[t]he term labor dispute includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment.” Thus, the first question in deciding whether the NLGA bars an injunction is whether this case grows out of a “labor dispute” for purposes of that statute.

Here, the underlying dispute placed in controversy “the terms and conditions” of certain employees. Moreover, the even though the constitutional claims in the lawsuit were somewhat attenuated from the underlying labor charges, they were captured by the statute’s broad language. Moreover, the claims in the federal-court lawsuit “would not exist but for the underlying” labor dispute. Thus, the court concluded that the employer’s suit “involves or grows out” of a labor dispute for purposes of the Act.

Employer did not satisfy §§ 107—108 of NLGA. Because the case grew out of a labor dispute, the court had to next determine whether the employer fulfilled the narrow statutory requirements for the court to grant injunctive relief. Here, the employer failed to show that it will suffer “substantial and irreparable injury to [its] property” absent an injunction. The D.C. Circuit “has set a high standard for irreparable injury,” requiring a movant to show an injury “beyond remediation.” In this instance, the employer came up short.

To start, the employer had not identified any of its “property” that would be substantially and irreparably injured without an injunction. That alone was enough to conclude that it could not satisfy the NLGA. With respect to harms that flowed from Counts II and III, the employer asserted that the ALJs’ appointments and the overall structure of the agency, in which all the relevant officers are answerable to the President, violate the Constitution. It therefore argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if forced into structurally “unconstitutional proceedings.” However, these arguments were foreclosed by the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning in Alpine Securities Corp. v. FINRA, 121 F.4th 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2751 (2025).

In the end, the court could not disregard Alpine; it had to faithfully apply it. Doing so, the court concluded that the employer had not shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from these claims.

And even if the employer were right that the best reading of Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission supports its irreparable harm argument, the court “lacks the authority to circumvent binding precedent by reading between the lines.” In Alpine, the D.C. Circuit distinguished Axon as a case about jurisdiction, not irreparable harm.

Appointment of Acting General Counsel. Moving on to Count I, the employer could not show irreparable harm flowing from that claim either. There, it alleged that the appointment of the Acting General Counsel was invalid under both the NLRA and FVRA, and thus his actions in the administrative case against it are void. The court lacked jurisdiction over this claim. “A party aggrieved by a decision of the [NLRB] must make its case first to the agency and then to the court of appeals.”

Further, the court concluded that the employer’s challenge to the appointment of the Acting General Counsel failed at least the first two Thunder Basin factors and so fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in SW General v. NLRB, 796 F.3d 67, 70 (D.C. Cir. 2015), aff’d, 580 U.S. 288 (2017), reviewed an objection challenging that the Acting General Counsel... was serving in violation of the FVRA. Given that the Circuit agreed that the Acting General Counsel had been improperly appointed, that precedent made clear that the employer can seek meaningful post-hearing review of this claim in the court of appeals.

Likewise, with respect to the second Thunder Basin factor, it was hard to see how the claim could be considered wholly collateral to the statute’s review provisions, since courts of appeals have repeatedly considered similar claims under those exact provisions. For these reasons, the court lacked jurisdiction over this claim, and so it could not be the source of irreparable harm for purposes of a preliminary injunction.

Right to jury trial. The employer’s final claim in Count IV, concerned its jury trial rights under the Seventh Amendment. It contended that “it is entitled to a jury trial” under the Seventh Amendment if the NLRB “seeks legal relief against it”—in particular, compensatory or consequential damages—and that the NLRB lacks statutory authority to do so anyway. Thus, the employer argued that it will suffer irreparable harm if “ordered to pay... impermissible and unconstitutional consequential damages” in violation of its Seventh Amendment rights. The court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over this claim as well. Moreover, any injury stemming from a consequential damages award is not “beyond remediation,” since the employer “can seek review of the NLRB’s decision”—including any damages award or relief imposed—“in the court of appeals.”

Accordingly, the employer was denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

The case is No. 25-2896 (TJK).

Judge: Kelly, T.

Attorneys: Roscoe Howard, Jr. (Barnes & Thornburg) for Hannam Chain USA, Inc. Padraic Lehane for the NLRB, William B. Cowen, Marvin E. Kaplan, and David M. Prouty.

Companies: Hannam Chain USA, Inc.

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices OrganizingElections Procedure AgencyNews DistrictofColumbiaNews