Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rochester Regional Joint Board, Workers United began representing certain employees at the Buffalo Hyatt Regency Hotel in summer 2024. After alleging that Aimbridge Employee Service Corp. responded to its organizing efforts with an aggressive counter-campaign, the Union filed three unfair-labor-practice charges accusing Aimbridge of dozens of violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint alleging 18 violations in June 2025.
Aimbridge then sued to enjoin the NLRB from prosecuting the unfair-labor-practice case until Congress corrected what Aimbridge characterized as unconstitutional removal protections for NLRB officials. The Union moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, arguing that the litigation threatened its members’ ability to pursue relief through the NLRB proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied intervention as of right. Although the Union moved promptly, possessed a legally protectable interest as the charging party, and showed that the litigation could impair that interest, it failed to establish that the NLRB would represent its interest inadequately. The Union and the NLRB shared the same ultimate objective: defeating Aimbridge’s requested declaratory and injunctive relief so that the NLRA proceeding could continue.
That shared objective created a presumption of adequate representation. The Union did not identify a unique defense or concrete litigation effect its participation would supply, nor did it show adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance by the NLRB. Because failure to satisfy any Rule 24(a)(2) requirement defeats intervention of right, the court denied mandatory intervention.
The court also declined permissive intervention. It concluded that the Union had not met Rule 24(b)’s requirements and, in any event, emphasized that permissive intervention remains wholly discretionary even when those requirements are satisfied.
Key Takeaways
- A union that filed the underlying unfair-labor-practice charges may have a protectable interest in litigation challenging the NLRB’s structure.
- Potential impairment of that interest does not establish intervention of right when the NLRB adequately represents the union’s ultimate objective.
- A proposed intervenor sharing an existing party’s objective must overcome the presumption of adequate representation by showing adversity, collusion, nonfeasance, or a meaningful litigation contribution.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a charging party’s genuine stake in an NLRB-related constitutional suit from its entitlement to participate as a party. Even where the requested relief could disrupt the administrative proceeding arising from a union’s own charges, intervention is unavailable unless the union explains concretely why the NLRB cannot adequately defend their shared objective.
The ruling also signals that courts may keep structural constitutional challenges to the NLRB focused on the existing parties when a proposed intervenor offers no distinct defense, while leaving open the possibility of participation through an amicus filing.