Robb said that if he followed through with Biden’s request Wednesday, it “would set an unfortunate precedent” for labor relations in the U.S., according to a copy of a letter obtained by Law360. The White House said he was subsequently fired.

In a Thursday letter, Stock also declined Biden’s request, arguing that it would be “detrimental” to the agency’s operations given the “dubious legality” of Robb’s firing.

Robb promoted Stock to deputy general counsel in 2019. Before joining the NLRB, she was a management-side attorney representing businesses in collective bargaining disputes and unfair labor practice charges.

“The abrupt and unceremonious removal of General Counsel Robb,” Stock wrote in response to Biden’s request, “are unfortunate for our country and to those who believed that this administration intended to follow the traditions and rules of law in our democracy.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding whether Stock has been fired.

Robb’s removal before his term was set to end in November follows criticism from Democrats over the direction the board took under President Donald Trump. Democrats have also raised concerns over Robb’s moves to reorganize some of the board’s regional offices and new guidelines for agency investigations.

Organized labor had long opposed Robb, who also previously served as a management-side attorney and is known for kicking off the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s caseto decertify the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization following the 1981 strike.

The NLRB is an independent federal agency charged with enforcing U.S. law related to labor practices and collective bargaining agreements. Robb had significant control over what cases the board considered in his role overseeing investigations and charges brought against companies suspected of violating the National Labor Relations Act.

Bloomberg Law was first to report the news.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the top Republican on the House labor committee, questioned whether Biden had the authority to remove Robb, saying the move “flouts the National Labor Relations Act.”

One management-side attorney says it’s legally murky whether the president had the authority to oust Robb.

Steve Bernstein, co-chair of Fisher Phillips’ Labor Relations practice, suggested that Robb may have an avenue to challenge his firing, because the NLRA states that the president may remove any member of the board for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

“I’ve seen no indication that the administration has found that he’s guilty of such misconduct,” Bernstein said.

But other legal opinions and rulings suggest that Biden was allowed to make the termination.

A legal memo from the AFL-CIO’s general counsel argues that the National Labor Relations Act, which established the NLRB, “provides no limitation on the president’s authority to remove the General Counsel.”

The union federation’s general counsel also points to Supreme Court precedent which has found “that a statutorily-fixed term of office is a limitation on the officeholder’s length of service,” not a limit on Biden’s authority to remove an official.

In a July 1983 memo, current Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, then an associate counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office, also said such a move was in the president’s purview, concluding that “the General Counsel serves at the pleasure of the President.”

Members of the labor movement hailed the news of Robb’s forced exit as evidence that Biden’s was following through on his campaign promises to be a fierce advocate for labor rights.

“@JoeBiden is the real deal for Labor,” Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, tweeted in response to Robb’s firing. “Now, what are we going to do with this moment?”

A top House Democrat called it “a major victory for American workers.”

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, said Robb “has consistently neglected his statutory duty to uphold workers’ right to stand together and negotiate for better working conditions.”

But anti-union groups and Republicans slammed the decision as divisive and “unprecedented.”

The National Right to Work Foundation called it the “very opposite of a return to ‘normal’ and a disturbing sign of just how far the Biden-Harris Administration is willing to go to pay back the union bosses that helped put Biden in the White House.”

Democrats have also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest between Trump-appointed board members and their former clients. House Democrats subpoenaed the board last year for documents related to alleged conflicts in a high-profile unfair labor practice case against McDonald’s Corp., in which Robb had a role.

The case was brought by the Obama-era NLRB alleging that the fast-food giant was liable for labor violations committed by its franchisees.

Robb sought a stay in the McDonald’s case, arguing that a later-vacated business-friendly board ruling on joint employment rendered moot the claims against the fast-food giant.

That case, Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, was reversed by the NLRB after an inspector general report said that board member William Emanuel shouldn’t have participated in the decision, given his former law firm’s participation in an earlier joint-employer case that the 2017 ruling overturned.

The dispute sparked outrage from Democrats who raised concerns about conflicts of interest at the labor board.

Robb said at the time he did “not agree with the opinions reached in the IG report.”

NLRB spokesperson Kevin Petroccione declined to comment.