So if the other 2 admin. judges had voted with G. in the first case it wouldn't have been biased? I'll concede that in the first case G. tried to do the right thing; but why didn't his reasoning sway his putative allies?
N: "The NLRB is a quasi-judicial forum whose only power is to interpret statute. It is not their job to overturn the clear intent of Congress and FedEx bought that clear intent, unfortunately."
Well, was it not the "intent" of Congress to abolish FedEx' protection under the RLA because they thought the penumbra of regulations and administrative processes of which it was a part were obsolete? Indeed couldn't G. et al., if they had made the 2nd decision during the "legal limbo", made the case that the legal reasoning for constraining organizing under RLA no longer applied in a 7+ trillion$$ economy; namely, the claim that if we were unionized we could have set off a series of events via a strike that would have brought the country to a standstill, was a joke?
I sympathize with those in the UAW [and probably lots of other unions as well] who say "get rid of the NLRB and the NMB; let's go back to the pre-Wagner days and duke it out directly with the people who are running this country and planet into the ground."
Ian