There's a difference between a Supreme Court decision and a Circuit Court decision. There is something of a circuit split (several different circuit splits, actually) regarding the question of when the Senate is in "Recess" for the purposes of the "Recess Appointments" clause. The DC Circuit's ruling in this case (that "Recess Appointments" apply only to appointments made during the recess between Congresses every two years, and that they only apply to vacancies that open up during that recess) was more restrictive of the President's power than most other decisions have been. The DC Circuit (unfortunately) did not enjoin the NLRB from acting with the disputed commissioners, which (again, unfortunately) means that the decision does not precent the NLRB from acting in other cases. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, the NLRB's position here is technically correct.
Since they didn’t enjoin it would appear they’re hoping for a swift SCOTUS review, no? If they let this go on it just gets worse, particularly if SCOTUS agrees.
Insofar as this & Roe v. Wade (RvW) is concerned, not really -- RvW is a Supreme Court overreach, and invalid for several reasons, one of which is that the Constitution guarantees the States have a Republican form of government. RvW is a violation thereof because, with one magic ruling, the USSC deemed that it could render [many] State laws invalid, not because they were in reality unconstitutional, but by making up a "right to privacy" (which is oddly nowhere to be found in cases concerning the War on Drugs) and saying that such right is infringed upon by the State prohibition of abortions (conveniently ignoring the mandate that States offer equal protection under law to its citizens, presumably even the unborn) -- arguably this decision is far more constitutional than RvW.