Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

VIIEnforcement LitigationA. Jurisdiction1. Employee Status in Rehabilitative SettingIn Arkansas Lighthouse for the Blind v. NLRB,' the Eighth Circuitheld that the Board abused its discretion when the Boardfound that Lighthouse's workers were employees within themeaning of the Act and asserted jurisdiction over that charitablenonprofit corporation that provides services to and carries onprograms for individuals with visual impairments. In the court'sview, the employment of these workers was primarily rehabilitativeand therapeutic, rather than primarily industrial. The courtbelieved that the Board took a much too restrictive view of whatconstitutes rehabilitation and therapy. The court found that, becausework is probably the most productive and successfulmethod of rehabilitation for handicapped persons, especially theblind who are able to work, the usual employer-employee relationshipin our competitive marketplace is not present in Lighthouse'sefforts to employ the handicapped, and that the union'snormal objective of securing improved working conditions forsuch employees is neither necessary nor productive of that objective.In refusing to enforce the Board's Order, the court specificallynoted that its decision was at odds with decisions by theFifth and Sixth Circuits in NLRB v. Lighthouse for the Blind ofHouston 2 and Cincinnati Assn. for the Blind v. NLRB, 3 respectively.2. Court Jurisdiction to Determine when Enforcement Is UnnecessaryIn NLRB v. Greensboro News & ReCord, 4 the Board sought enforcementof a 3-year-old Board Order because the company hadceased complying with that Order and a Board investigation resultedin the issuance of new allegations against the company.The Fourth Circuit, exercising its "equitable and supervisorypowers," denied enforcement of that Order, fmding that theOrder was "both unnecessary and obsolete." The court found en-1 851 F.2d 180.2 696 F.2d 399 (1983).'672 F2d 567 (1982).4 843 F.2d 795 (4th Cir.).139