Petitioner Agri Processor Co. was a wholesaler of kosher meat products based in Brooklyn, New York.

In September 2005, the company’s employees voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union. When the company refused to bargain, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The company defended its refusal, arguing that most of those who voted were undocumented aliens. The company argues that undocumented aliens are prohibited from unionizing because they do not qualify as “employees”

protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

The NLRA states, “The term‘employee’ shall include any employee…, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act…, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.”

How should the court rule in this case? Does the statutory definition compel an outcome, or is there sufficient ambiguity for the court to go either way? If so, what are the public policy considerations that the court ought to weigh in reaching a determination of the case? See Agri Processor, Inc. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1

(D.C. Cir. 2008).