Workforce Bulletin

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Sixth Circuit Rejects Cemex Bargaining Order: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to enforce a bargaining order issued under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) 2023 Cemex standard.
• Cemex Remains in Effect Outside the Sixth Circuit: The NLRB continues to treat Cemex as binding policy in all other jurisdictions, leaving employers outside the Sixth Circuit’s reach exposed to bargaining orders under the standard.
• A Formal Reversal May Be Coming: With its current composition, the NLRB is widely expected to reject Cemex outright when the appropriate case arises—thereby restoring the long-standing framework requiring unions to win a representation election before gaining recognition.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steven M. Swirsky provides insights on the Sixth Circuit's decision and what it means for employers navigating union recognition demands.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sets New Enforcement Priorities: NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey directed regional offices to prioritize the resolution of current cases over initiating new enforcement actions.
• Department of Labor (DOL) Targets Non-Union Workplaces: In an internal memo, DOL Solicitor of Labor Jonathan Berry emphasized that enforcement would focus on non-unionized environments, noting that unions were better equipped to address issues in unionized workplaces.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Cracks Down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Policies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a warning that preference-based diversity policies may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signaled a return to systemic investigations and large-scale litigation.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new compliance tools, its proposed pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) transparency regulation, and updated enforcement priorities from the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration. We also cover the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) revamped case intake process.

➡️ DOL Releases Compliance Tools

➡️ DOL Issues Proposed Regulation for PBMs

➡️ NLRB Adjusts Intake Procedure

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on reporting tips and overtime, a widened circuit split on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority, and a delayed Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee vote on an NLRB nominee.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) new leadership is reshaping workplace policies and enforcement priorities.

The EEOC, now under the leadership of Chair Andrea Lucas and with a quorum for the first time in months, is signaling shifts in enforcement priorities that could have significant implications for employers.

Epstein Becker Green attorney James D. Mackinson discusses the latest updates from the EEOC and what they mean for employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine what employers should anticipate as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—which currently has only one active member, a Democrat, and four vacancies—moves closer to regaining a quorum and resuming full operations.

For the first time in more than 10 months, the NLRB may soon have three members, reestablishing a quorum and potentially impacting employers significantly.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Corey P. Argust discusses the implications as the NLRB moves toward full operations.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering the new H-1B visa fee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) closure of disparate impact cases, and recent key labor appointments.

New Fee for H-1B Visas

Employers must now pay $100,000 for each first-time H-1B petition filed on or after September 21, 2025. Current visa holders are not affected. Exceptions may apply, but details are limited.

EEOC Shuts Down Disparate Impact Cases

The EEOC has closed nearly all disparate impact cases following a recent executive order. These claims can still be pursued in court. The agency will also dissolve its Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, although EEO-1 reporting requirements appear unchanged.

Key Labor Roles Confirmed

The Senate has confirmed Daniel Aronowitz as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed over 100 other labor-related appointments—including 11 top labor positions—restoring a quorum at both the EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering four key employer-focused developments:

• a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) authority,
• another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections,
• the White House’s reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and
• a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) early right-to-sue policy.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we look at the potential restoration of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) deregulatory initiatives, and lessons from a high-profile workplace incident at a Coldplay concert.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how the loss of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the rollback of affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, are creating significant hurdles for employers.

The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB’s general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we are focused on the immediate impact employers face from the rush of Trump administration executive orders, memos, and proclamations.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term. On his first day back, he signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, many of which have a direct impact on both public- and private-sector employers.

In this week’s episode, we turn to Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp to help clients make sense of this flurry of activity. Tune in as Paul outlines what employers can anticipate from Trump 2.0 in the months ahead.

As expected, the Trump administration has shifted the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) into a new era marked by notable changes that will reshape the Board. The first and most significant of these changes is the termination of Board Member Gwynne Wilcox. The second is the termination of General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The removal of Wilcox leaves the NLRB down to two Members, a Democrat and a Republican, and without a quorum for decision making and other actions until the President fills at least one of the three current vacancies. These changes raise many questions as to what is in store for the NLRB and its ability to perform its main functions.

As discussed further below, employers should consider the impact of these decisions on pending cases before the Board, consider asserting affirmative and procedural defenses early and often, and stay aware of rapidly developing changes expected to take effect over the coming months.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, while recognizing that it’s far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations.

We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, a few of our labor and employment attorneys share their insights on the key issues and emerging trends shaping the employment law landscape as we move into 2025.

Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead

Happy New Year! As we kick off 2025, we’re exploring key legal trends for employers, with a focus on the implications of the incoming Trump administration.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice discuss their predictions on how these changes could shape the employment law landscape in the year ahead.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.

On September 12, 2024, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) Region 22 in Newark, New Jersey, issued an unfair labor practice complaint against a New Jersey building services company, alleging that employee non-hire (or “no poach”) provisions in the company’s contracts with its building clients violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

According to the NLRB’s news release, the complaint alleges that Planned Companies D/B/A Planned Building Services, which is a janitorial, building maintenance, and concierge services provider, “has maintained provisions in its contracts with its client buildings that interfere with, and are inherently destructive of, workers’ rights under Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.”  It further alleges that “Planned Companies restricts its client buildings from soliciting its employees to work for them in a similar job classification for a period of six months after the agreement is terminated, or from hiring employees after they leave Planned Companies’ employment. Any entity retained by the client building to replace Planned Companies is also bound by the hiring restriction.” 

A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge has been set for November 12, 2024.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining a Texas court's recent decision that questions the constitutional authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):

Last week, a Texas district judge challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. Judge Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in favor of SpaceX, suggesting that the president’s inability to dismiss NLRB administrative law judges and board members could be unconstitutional. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steve Swirsky and Erin Schaefer provide their analysis of this ruling, its implications for employers, and the potential for similar challenges to arise across other jurisdictions.

In an action brought by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, commonly known as SpaceX, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, has declared that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) is unconstitutional.

The determination is the basis for an Order granting SpaceX’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining the NLRB General Counsel, as well as the presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board Members and NLRB staff, from proceeding with a scheduled unfair labor practice ...

The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. It is, however, likely to have implications for employers that are subject to the myriad of workplace laws administered by the United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board and other executive branch bodies.

Why the Buzz About Chevron?

For decades, courts have relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine—a mandate by which judges were required to defer to agency expertise when handling controversies surrounding Executive Branch policy, but that rule ended with Loper Bright Enterprises et al., v. Raimondo. While the categorical rejection of Chevron—as inconsistent with the responsibility of courts defined in the APA—went farther than most analysts expected, it should be noted, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence makes clear, that the Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case on the basis of Chevron since 2016.

The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. It is, however, likely to have implications for employers that are subject to the myriad of workplace laws administered by the United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board and other executive branch bodies.

Why the Buzz About Chevron?

For decades, courts have relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine—a mandate by which judges were required to defer to agency expertise when handling controversies surrounding Executive Branch policy, but that rule ended with Loper Bright Enterprises et al., v. Raimondo. While the categorical rejection of Chevron—as inconsistent with the responsibility of courts defined in the APA—went farther than most analysts expected, it should be noted, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence makes clear, that the Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case on the basis of Chevron since 2016.

Today, we’re bringing you a special breaking news episode on the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in the Starbucks v. McKinney case, which effectively raises the standard for federal courts issuing injunctions under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

This ruling is a significant blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement priorities. In the video below, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steve Swirsky tells us more.

In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”). The 9-0 decision,  authored  by Justice Thomas, with Justice Jackson concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, held that appropriate standard is the four-part test for preliminary injunctive relief articulated in Winter v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7 (2008). That test requires the party seeking the injunction to show “[1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U. S., at 20, 22. This represents a significant change and one that is likely to make it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) to obtain injunctive relief while an unfair labor practice claim is being litigated.

While four circuits – the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth – already followed the four-factor preliminary injunction test, five other circuits – the Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh, and the Sixth Circuit, where Starbucks v. McKinney originated – had applied a less demanding standard that only required the NLRB to demonstrate that the Board’s Regional Director had concluded that “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred,” and whether injunctive relief is “just and proper.” This two-factor test versus the four-factor test was seen by many to be a lower barrier to injunctive relief.

Almost a decade ago, in September 2014, California was the first state in the nation to enact legislation prohibiting non-disparagement clauses that aimed to prevent consumers from writing negative reviews of a business. Popularly referred to as the “Yelp Bill,” AB 2365 was codified at California Civil Code Section 1670.8, which prohibits businesses from threatening or otherwise requiring consumers, in a contract or proposed contract for sale or lease of consumer goods, to waive their right to make any statement—positive or negative—regarding the business or ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) request for Starbucks to reopen shuttered stores; how big tech is retreating from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; and why employers may start scrapping college requirements for certain positions in 2024.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: With such a tumultuous year of labor and employment updates behind us, it begs the question, “What lies ahead in 2024?”

In this special New Year's episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys share insights and predictions for the 2024 labor and employment space, addressing important topics such as maintaining compliance, promoting mental health, navigating protected concerted activity policies, and staying abreast of the latest developments in artificial intelligence and non-compete guidance.

In this special year-end episode of Employment Law This Week, recorded live from our 42nd Annual Workforce Management Briefing in New York City, Epstein Becker Green attorneys discuss the biggest employment law trends and crucial workforce changes in 2023, covering everything from non-competes and National Labor Relations Board actions to union dynamics, cybersecurity, and the impacts of artificial intelligence.

The Clash famously asked “Should I stay, or should I go?” on their 1982 album, Combat Rock, and with recent attacks on non-competes at both the state and federal level, some employers are imposing additional costs on employees who take advantage of an employer’s training opportunities only to leave and join a competitor. So-called “stay or pay” clauses, or training-repayment-agreement-provisions (TRAPs), typically require an employee to pay the employer the cost the employer incurred to train the employee if the employee leaves their employment within a certain ...

After a flurry of pro-employee National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decisions, the Fifth Circuit gave employers a glimmer of hope, rejecting the Board’s recent rule issued in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (2022) that effectively put every employer’s appearance, dress code and uniform policy in jeopardy of violating Board law if it could be read to limit employees’ ability to wear union apparel or insignia in any way unless the employer is able to meet the high burden of demonstrating that “special circumstances” existed to justify the policy.

The Tesla, Inc ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re elaborating on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) controversial joint-employer rule:

The joint-employer rule published by the NLRB on October 26 expanded the definition of the rule in ways that will likely have a major impact on the workplace. However, a recent postponement means that the rule will not take effect until February 26, 2024.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer tell us the implications this rule may have for employers and how a flurry of legal challenges ...

On September 6, 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 4982 and Assembly Bill 6604, which amends Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law to prohibit most employers from requiring non-managerial and non-supervisory employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings where the primary purpose is to communicate the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters. The amendment took immediate effect and makes New York the latest state to ban so-called “captive audience meetings,” following the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) expanded “joint employer” definition, the recent confirmations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) General Counsel and the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Wage and Hour Administrator, and President Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence (AI).

NLRB Expands Definition of “Joint Employer" 

The NLRB recently published its long-awaited final rule, setting a new test for determining joint-employer ...

The United States Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) recently signaled an alarming willingness to use its broad subpoena powers under Section 601 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 521 (“LMRDA” or “Act”), to examine records of explicitly lawful conduct by employers whose employees may be seeking to unionize. This effort maybe a precursor to OLMS’s plan to significantly expand employer reporting and disclosure obligations under Section 203 of the Act which requires employers and ...

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued its Final Rule (the “Rule”) on Joint-Employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Slated to take effect on December 26, 2023, the Rule returns to and expands on the Obama era Browning-Ferris test, scrapping the NLRB’s 2020 Joint Employer test and setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court over the “major questions” doctrine and the scope of the NLRB’s administrative authority.

The Final Rule Summarized

 Under the new Rule, any entity that shares or ...

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued its Final Rule (the “Rule”) on Joint-Employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Slated to take effect on December 26, 2023, the Rule returns to and expands on the Obama era Browning-Ferris test, scrapping the NLRB’s 2020 Joint Employer test for the sole reason that the current Board disagrees with the 2020 test, and setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court over the “major questions” doctrine and the scope of the NLRB’s administrative authority.

The ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re breaking down recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that are impacting both union and non-union employers:

The NLRB is continuing its labor-friendly push with increased protections for unions, new limitations on employer rights, and significant changes that are likely to make it easier for unions to secure bargaining rights. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer tell us more about the current labor landscape and how the NLRB’s actions apply to more ...

It has been a decision-packed summer at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), and the last weeks of summer were especially active, with a number of significant decisions released at the end of August that could affect employers with non-unionized as well as unionized workforces. The following is a roundup of significant developments, in order of recency:

Board Membership Update: Member Wilcox Confirmed for a Second Term – One Vacancy Remains

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023, the Senate confirmed President Biden’s nomination of Gwynne Wilcox for a ...

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) published its final rule (“2023 Rule”) on Friday, August 25, amending the representation election procedures that it previously proposed in 2019 and finalized, after some additional revisions, in 2020 (“2019 Rule”).  Recall that the 2019 Rule had already experienced a significant setback earlier this year.  In January 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated three substantive changes that the 2019 Rule would have made to the election procedures adopted by the Board in 2014 (“2014 Rule”) while keeping the ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re analyzing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent Stericycle decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) proposed rule on pregnant workers’ rights, and the EEOC’s first-ever artificial intelligence (AI) anti-discrimination lawsuit settlement.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we bring you our special Spilling Secrets podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law:

Most restrictive covenant disputes are resolved out of court. However, what about the restrictive covenant disputes that lead not only to litigation but also to litigation beyond the injunction phase?

Our all-star panel of attorneys—Peter A. Steinmeyer, Katherine G. Rigby, A. Millie Warner, and Erik W. Weibust—discuss more.

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced a long-anticipated decision called Stericyle that will affect how employers craft, apply and enforce workplace policies, regardless of whether a labor union represents their employees. As we anticipated several years ago, the Stericyle Board, with a majority of members nominated by President Joseph Biden, rejected the agency’s 2017 decision in The Boeing Company, in which it adopted a balancing test to evaluate facially neutral employer rules and handbook provisions. Under The Boeing Company test, the Board weighed the nature and extent of such rules’ potential impact on employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) against employers’ legitimate justification(s) for the policies.

The majority opinion in Stericycle Inc. substantively revives the NLRB’s stance on workplace rules as established in the 2004 Lutheran Heritage decision. Under this new framework, the mere maintenance of any employer’s rule, policy, or handbook provision that has a “reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights” may constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of the NLRA.

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced a long-anticipated Decision that will affect how employers craft, apply and enforce workplace policies in almost all workplaces, regardless of whether employees are represented by a union. As we anticipated several years ago, the current Board, with a majority of members nominated by President Biden, has now rejected the agency’s 2017 decision in The Boeing Company, in which it adopted a balancing test to evaluate facially neutral employer rules and handbook provisions by examining the nature and extent of their potential impact on employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) against legitimate justification(s) for the policies.

The majority opinion in Stericycle Inc. substantively revives the NLRB’s stance on workplace rules as established in the 2004 Lutheran Heritage decision.Under this new framework, any employer’s rule, policy, or handbook provision that  has a “reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights” may be deemed to constitute an unfair labor practice and to be unlawful in violation of the NLRA.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we bring you our special Spilling Secrets podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law:

On May 31, 2023, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo stating her position that non-compete agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. So, what does this mean for employers?

Management-side attorneys and the businesses that they represent will be pleased with the Supreme Court’s holding in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The case concerned the issue of whether the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169 (“NLRA” or the “Act”), preempted a state tort claim seeking damages for harm suffered by their employer, caused by employees’ inaction in failing to deliver concrete that had already been loaded into the employer’s trucks or otherwise taking action to prevent the hardening concrete from damaging the trucks, thus intentionally destroying property owned by Glacier. Notably, the striking employees and their union knew that the trucks had been loaded when they began their strike. An eight-justice majority held that the union and its members were, on the facts of the case, not engaged in protected conduct as that term is defined under the NLRA. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito concurred. As against this jurisprudentially diverse array, Justice Jackson was the only dissenter.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found its first target under recent guidance issued in a memo from its General Counsel claiming that noncompete agreements may violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). According to Bloomberg Law, “[t]he NLRB’s first enforcement action against an employer’s noncompete agreement targeted a Michigan cannabis processor and ended with a recent private settlement resolving the alleged labor law violations.” (The enforcement action predates the guidance memo). Bloomberg obtained redacted documents from the case via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The National Labor Relations Board’s top lawyer, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued  a General Counsel memo today instructing the Labor Board’s Regional Directors of her position  that noncompete clauses for employees protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (i.e., nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees) in employment contracts and severance agreements violate federal labor law except in limited circumstances. The memo, while not law, outlines her legal theory which she will present to the National Labor Relations Board, which makes law primarily through adjudication of unfair labor practice cases.  The memo instructs the agency’s field offices of the position that the General Counsel is instructing them to take when investigating unfair labor practice charges claiming that such clauses interfere with employees’ rights under the NLRA.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we recap the continued rise in unfair labor practice (ULP) charge filings reported by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); New York City’s new prohibitions against size discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations; and Florida’s forthcoming E-Verify requirements for public and private employers with 25 or more employees.

On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or “NLRB”), with a majority of appointees by President Biden, i.e., “the Biden-Board,” reversed the short-lived General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020) decision and reinstated the Atlantic Steel test for analyzing whether an employee’s grossly unprofessional conduct when engaging in union or other protected concerted activity loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). The Board issued Lion Elastomers, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) and reinstated Atlantic Steel 245 NLRB 814 (1979) and its progeny, making it more difficult for employers to discipline employees who engage in outrageous, otherwise inappropriate, speech and/or actions in the course of engaging in union or other protected concerted activity.

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released a decision in Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC d/b/a WR Reserve, 372 NLRB No. 80, in which it laid out sweeping remedies the Board will consider imposing in cases involving so-called “repeat offenders” of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

In Noah’s Ark, the Board affirmed findings made by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that the employer bargained in bad faith with the union representing its employees, implemented its final offer without achieving overall impasse, engaged in regressive bargaining and other impermissible bargaining tactics, and threatened and interrogated employees because of their protected activity, all of which came on the heels of the employer defying a previous federal court injunction related to earlier bad faith bargaining and other unfair labor practice allegations. The Board not only upheld the make-whole remedies ordered by the ALJ, but also announced “the potential remedies the Board will consider in cases involving [employers] who have shown a proclivity to violate the Act or who have engaged in egregious or widespread misconduct.” In doing so, the Board ordered remedies beyond those imposed by the ALJ, noting that the Board “[has] broad discretion to exercise [its] remedial authority under Section 10(c) of the Act even when no party has taken issue with the judge’s recommended remedies or requested additional forms of relief.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we examine how several recent pronouncements and actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and its General Counsel’s office are creating new challenges for employers, both union and non-union.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re showcasing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s memo on non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in severance agreements, Illinois’ new law permitting Illinois employees to take paid leave “for any reason,” and New Jersey’s upcoming implementation of the “Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights.”

Approximately a month after the Board issued McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, which left employers scrambling to decipher its unclear impact on both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released guidance outlining her views on the decision’s implications and meaning in Memorandum GC 23-05 on March 22, 2023. The GC’s Memo contains an FAQ in response to inquiries the NLRB has received about the McLaren Macomb decision and outlines Abruzzo’s plans for enforcement of the decision.

The General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), Jennifer Abruzzo, has opened the vault and released previously unseen Advice Memoranda from her Obama-era predecessor General Counsel Richard Griffin, in her bid to continue to upend long-standing Board law.  Abruzzo, who was Deputy General Counsel under Griffin, and who now heads the Office of the General Counsel, has released a slew of historic Advice Memoranda that shed light on her legal theory to limit employer’s free speech rights and their ability to communicate with employees about the real-world consequences of unionization on the workplace and the employer-employee relationship.

Approximately a month after the Board issued McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, which left employers scrambling to decipher its unclear impact on both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released guidance outlining her views on the decision’s implications and meaning in Memorandum GC 23-05 on March 22, 2023. The GC’s Memo contains an FAQ in response to inquiries the NLRB has received about the McLaren Macomb decision and outlines Abruzzo’s plans for enforcement of the decision.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re highlighting the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) crackdown on confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements, a U.S. Supreme Court decision opening overtime to high-earning daily-rate workers, and a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in favor of mandatory arbitration in California.

On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) continued its aggressive application of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act” or “NLRA”) to workplaces without union representation and lessened the value of severance agreements for all employers by finding it unlawful for an employer to merely proffer a severance agreement that includes broad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions to an employee. In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that a severance agreement that contains a confidentiality clause and a non-disparagement clause was unlawful because, in the Board’s view, these provisions impermissibly infringe on employees’ rights under the Act. Specifically, the Board found that these two provisions limit employees’ ability to discuss their wages, hours, and working conditions (which could include disparaging remarks) with other employees, prevent employees from assisting other employees seeking assistance, and hinder employees themselves from seeking assistance from the NLRB, unions, and other outside organizations.

On January 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially reversed and partially upheld a District Court decision that enjoined five rules promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) in 2019 by the Trump-era Board (“2019 Rule”) to modify the Board’s representation election procedures.  The 2019 Rule attempted to ease some of the “quickie election” rules established in 2014 by the Obama-era Board (“2014 Rule”).  For a further discussion of the 2019 Rule, see “NLRB Issues Proposed Rule to Scale Back 2014 Expedited Election Rules.”

The D.C. Circuit held that because the Trump-era Board did not seek public notice and comment as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when issuing the 2019 Rule, “substantive” rule changes could not take effect, but “procedural” rule changes were valid under the procedural exception to the APA’s requirement for notice and comment.

The General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is urging the Board to upend nearly 60 years of precedent and adopt a new legal standard that significantly limits employers’ ability to hire permanent replacements for striking employees. Under current law, employers have a general right to permanently replace workers who go on strike to obtain economic concessions from their employer, so long as an employer does not hire the replacements for an “independent unlawful purpose.” In an Advice Memorandum released on December 30, 2022, the GC confirmed her intention to push for the Board to impose a more restrictive standard that would require employers to show specific business reasons justifying the decision to replace strikers.

On December 16, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (”Board”) issued its decision in Bexar County II, which restricts the right of property owners to deny off-duty contract workers access to the property for the purpose of engaging in activities protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). In line with the current Board’s efforts to undo Trump-era decisions and reinterpret the Act to dramatically expand employees’ Section 7 rights and weaken property owners’ rights to control their property, the Board overturned its own precedent on contract workers’ off-duty access and reinstated its standard first established in the 2011 decision in New York New York Hotel & Casino . The Board’s decision in Bexar County II makes clear that it prioritizes contract workers’ access to a third-party’s property for Section 7 activities over the property owner’s own interests in their property. [1]

On December 14, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued a decision in American Steel Construction, Inc., reinstating its “overwhelming community of interest” Specialty Healthcare [1] test that gave rise to micro-bargaining units, which are smaller bargaining units that scored unions numerous victories during the Obama administration.  In so doing, the Board overruled PCC Structurals [2] and The Boeing Co., [3] both of which restored and refined the traditional “community of interest” standard used to evaluate challenges to a petitioned-for bargaining unit on the basis it excluded necessary employees. 

On December 13, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) issued a decision that greatly broadens the remedies available for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). Prior to this decision, the Board’s “make whole” remedies for more than 80 years have generally included only backpay, reasonable search-for-work expenses, and interim employment expenses.

In an Advice Memorandum dated April 20, 2022 and released on November 30, 2022, the Division of Advice within the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) Office of the General Counsel urged the Board to overturn existing Board law to significantly lower the standard for when an employer must furnish the union with its general financial information. This latest push to bolster unions during bargaining follows the NLRB’s General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s (“GC”) issuance of Memorandum GC 21-04 regarding Mandatory Submissions to Advice on August 12, 2021, wherein she signaled her intent to change this standard.

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) isn’t giving up on pandemic related mail ballots in representation elections any time soon. On September 29, 2022, in a decision concerning an election at a Seattle area Starbucks, the Board passed on an opportunity to cast aside its COVID-Era six-factor test articulated in Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020), which has been used for the past two years to determine if a Board-conducted representation election should be conducted by mail or in person (called a “manual” election in Board parlance). Instead of jettisoning the Aspirus test entirely, the Board replaced just one of the tests factors, now relying on the CDC Community Level Tracker rather than test positivity trends or rates in this analysis.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at labor law and pay developments from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in California.

On August 29, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) issued a decision in Tesla, Inc. regarding dress code policies that further the Biden Board’s efforts to remake NLRB policy. This decision has big implications for employers that maintain appearance, dress code, and uniform policies. The Board’s decision now firmly establishes that any employer’s uniform or dress code policy is inherently unlawful if it can be read “in any way” to prohibit employees from wearing union insignia unless an employer can prove that its policy is justified by special circumstances. It is irrelevant whether the employer’s policy has ever been applied to prohibit union t-shirts or the employer actively permits union buttons or other insignia. Further, and critical to a broader understanding of the implications of this decision, it is also irrelevant whether the workplace is unionized or even being actively unionized.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we examine the enforcement risks employers could face in the complex, state-by-state landscape of abortion law after Roe v. Wade.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we update you on new COVID-19 guidance and union organizing and non-compete trends at the federal and local levels.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we update you on two major developments from the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) and this year’s abridged timeline to submit EEO-1 data.

Employees’ free choice and their right to a secret-ballot election on union membership are potentially at risk, given the latest development from the Office of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”). On April 11, 2022, the NLRB’s General Counsel filed a brief urging a change in long-standing precedent, demanding that the Board force employers to recognize unions as the representative of their employees without first allowing employees the opportunity to cast their votes on union membership in a secret-ballot election held by the Board. The only real requirement for this dramatic result is that the union present signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees that ostensibly confirm the employees’ desire to be represented by the union and that the employer decline recognition of the union without a good faith doubt as to the union’s majority. This brief is General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s first major move to follow through on her previously stated goal of restoring this standard—known as the Joy Silk doctrine—which was abandoned more than 50 years ago.

On April 7, 2022, Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), issued Memorandum GC 22-04, titled “The Right to Refrain from Captive Audience and other Mandatory Meetings” (“GC Memo”). It is no secret that the General Counsel has been an advocate for policies and practices that would increase union representation and make it easier for unions to gain recognition and win votes on representation. This includes restricting steps employers can take to share their views with employees. Such a step that the GC Memo calls for is a series of restrictions on what have been called “captive audience speeches,” that is, meetings on company time where employers present their views.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently sought public comments on the continued use of videoconference technology to conduct hearings. The co-chairs of Epstein Becker Green’s Labor Management Relations Practice submitted the attached comment arguing against continuing remote hearings because they are less efficient, credible, austere and probative and deprive all parties of due process.  Not surprisingly, the NLRB Division of Judges also submitted comments confirming the inadequacies of remote hearings.

For additional information, continue reading ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re focusing on what employers can expect from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2022.

November 17, 2021, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) conducted a webinar on Ending Retaliation and Promoting Workers Rights.  The webinar is the first component of a “Joint Initiative” devoted to “vigorous enforcement” of laws against retaliation, through closer inter-agency cooperation.  The webinar was moderated by EEOC Regional Director Robert Canino and involved over 90 minutes of detailed remarks from Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows and Acting DOL Wage and Hour Division Director Jessica Looman.

Last week, as widely reported, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to Protect Workers from the COVID-19 (see full details in our Insight). Currently the subject of much pending litigation including a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and thus, for the time being, in limbo, the ETS is nonetheless a set of federal regulations that, unless overturned, applies to a large proportion of U.S. employers with 100 or more workers and requires those employers to either: (a) mandate that all ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal contractors and how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is creating a more expansive view of the employment relationship.

Employers Prepare for Biden’s Expansive Vaccine Mandate

The full impact of President Biden’s COVID-19 action plan is sinking in for employers. The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force released guidance for federal contractors and subcontractors requiring vaccinations for most employees of federal contractors by December 8.

Vaccine ...

On August 12, 2021, Jennifer A. Abruzzo issued her first memorandum as newly sworn National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) General Counsel. The memo, Mandatory Submissions to Advice, Memorandum GC 21-04 (“GC Memo 21-04”), serves as a road map of the new General Counsel’s plans and her intent to depart from the priorities of her predecessor, Peter Robb, and to target cases and initiatives from the Trump Board that overruled the precedent from the Obama Board. As we have previously reported, President Biden, on the day of his inauguration, took the ...

President Biden’s $6 trillion 2022 budget proposal focuses on worker protections—including the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan. Both of these plans contain labor and numerous employment initiatives. The budget proposes increased funding for the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”).

The 2022 budget calls for $2.1 billion, an increase of $304 million, in DOL’s worker protection agencies. Over the past four years, those agencies ...

On July 21, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Abruzzo to a four-year term as the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”). Ms. Abruzzo’s confirmation was by a vote of 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. Ms. Abruzzo was sworn in the next day, by NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran. As the NLRB notes, this is “the first time in NLRB history women are serving as both Chairman and General Counsel” of the agency.

Ms. Abruzzo has spent much of her career at the NLRB. She previously served as the Board’s Deputy ...

On June 15, 2021, the Office of General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released an Advice Memorandum, explaining that an Illinois pub did not commit an unfair labor practice when it fired an employee who had previously complained about the pub’s COVID-19 safety policies, because the employee’s complaints did not constitute “protected concerted activity,” as defined under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The NLRA protects employees engaged in concerted activity, including participating in union activities ...

On March 30, 2021, the Office of General Counsel of the National Labor Relation Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released an Obama-era Advice Memorandum, originally prepared in 2016, opining that racially charged comments were protected concerted activity.  Just one day later, on March 31, 2021, Acting General Counsel Peter Sung Ohr affirmed in his latest Memorandum (“March 31^st Memorandum”) his plan to pursue a broadening of employees’ protections under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) beyond concerted activities relating to ...

Confidential arbitration agreements between employers and their employees are commonplace.  Employers favor such agreements for many reasons, including preserving privacy and allowing legitimate claims to be either settled or litigated based on their merits, rather than the threat of public embarrassment or high defense costs.  Employees, too, may value the confidentiality afforded by arbitration.  In contrast to private and confidential arbitration proceedings, public testimony and publicly filed court pleadings, motions, and briefs may contain unflattering or ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week on our special podcast series, Employers and the New Administration, we look at what President Biden’s support for unions throughout his political career might mean for labor management relations.

In this episode, Glenn Spencer, Senior Vice President of the Employment Policy Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and attorney Steve Swirsky discuss what employers can expect from the NLRB under the Biden administration. Attorney David Garland leads the conversation.

See below for the video edition and the extended ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week on our special podcast series, Employers and the New Administration, we look at what President Biden’s support for unions throughout his political career might mean for labor management relations.

In this episode, Glenn Spencer, Senior Vice President of the Employment Policy Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and attorney Steve Swirsky discuss what employers can expect from the NLRB under the Biden administration. Attorney David Garland leads the conversation.

See below for the video edition and the extended ...

On Tuesday, the three-member, all Republican, National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a 3-0 decision in General Motors LLC and Charles Robinson, 369 NLRB No. 127 (July 21, 2020), reversing its longstanding standard for determining when employers violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by disciplining employees who, while engaged in activity protected under Section 7 of the Act, use profanity-laced speech, as well as racial, ethnic or sexist slurs, or other abusive conduct toward or about management or other employees. Going forward, including ...

On June 23, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) overruled a 2016 decision that required employers to bargain over the discipline of employees during negotiations for a first contract.  The Board noted that the decision it issued Tuesday in 800 River Road Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (“Care One”), reinstated “the law as it existed for 80 years,” under which the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) did not impose a “predisciplinary bargaining obligation” on employers with newly-unionized ...

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020, overruled decades of convoluted Board precedent regarding “dual-marked ballots” in union representation elections – establishing a new bright line test.  A “dual-marked ballot,” to put it simply, is a ballot that has markings in or around both the “YES” and “NO” box, thus, making it difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether the employee who cast the ballot actually intended to vote for or against union representation. Indeed, a dual-marked ballot might also mean that ...

­­Amid the ever-increasing impact of the COVID-19 crisis across the country, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced on Wednesday that the two-week freeze on representation elections currently in effect would end on April 3, 2020.  In the weeks leading up to the nationwide postponement of elections, which included both manual and mail ballot elections, the Board implemented an agency-wide telework policy and announced the closure of several Regional Offices.  According to the Board’s website, at least six Regional Offices remained closed as ...

Following are the top stories featured in this week's #WorkforceWednesday, from Employment Law This Week:

Employee Travel and the Coronavirus

The threat of COVID-19 is growing, and U.S. companies are on high alert. International travel by employees is an area of particular concern to employers. For more, check out our resource center at https://www.ebglaw.com/coronavirus.

NLRB Joint-Employment Rule to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board ...

The National Labor Relations Board has announced the issuance of its final rule governing joint-employer status. The new rule, which was first proposed in September 2018 and has been the subject of extensive public comment, will become effective April 27, 2020.

The critical elements for finding a joint-employer relationship under the new rule is the possession and the exercise of substantial direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by another employer.  The essence of the new rule is described in the Board’s February 25, 2020 press ...

The National Labor Relations Board, in its December 17^th decision in Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, has reversed its prior rule and held that employer requirements that employees treat workplace investigations as confidential are “presumptively lawful.”  The Apogee decision overturns the Board’s 2015 Banner Estrella decision, which had required that an employer seeking to impose confidentiality in connection with a workplace investigation was required to prove, on a case by case basis, that the integrity of an investigation would be compromised without ...

On December 17, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) ruled that an employer’s rule prohibiting use of its email system for nonbusiness purposes did not violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The 3-1 decision in Caesars Entertainment Corp d/b/a Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, NLRB Case No. 28-CA-060841, overturns the Board’s 2014 decision in Purple Communications, which held that work rules prohibiting employees from using employer-provided email systems for union activity were presumptively invalid.

According to the ...

Approximately four years ago, during the Obama Administration, the National Labor Relations Board upended decades of well-settled precedent by making it unlawful for employers to unilaterally cease dues checkoff pursuant to a contractual dues check-off provision upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement.  This week, the Republican-majority Board in Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. reversed that departure from established precedent and restored balance and stability in collective bargaining negotiations by holding that an employer has the right to stop ...

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) has announced that it is publishing proposed changes to its Rules and Regulations that will begin to reverse the Board’s 2014 changes, which took effect in 2015, to its representation election rules and procedures commonly referred to as the “ambush election rules.”  The proposed final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2019 and to become effective 120 days after publication.

Board Chairman John F.  Ring described the rule changes as “common sense changes to ensure ...

The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) has signaled what may be a major resetting of the law on the Board’s position concerning the legality of so called neutrality agreements, in which employers make concessions and accommodations to labor unions seeking to organize and represent their employees.  This occurred with the General Counsel’s consideration of an appeal by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (the “Fund”) of a dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge had filed  against United Here! Local 8 ...

One of the matters of significance to employers and unions under the National Labor Relations Act that became a point of contention under the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) during the Obama Administration was the movement to allow representation elections in what were commonly referred to as “micro-units,” which many believed made it easier for unions to score victories and gain bargaining rights. The Board’s recent decision in Boeing Co. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers provides important guidance for ...

On October 24, 2019, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Protecting American Jobs Act.  The bill, cosponsored by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), Rand Paul (R-KY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marco Rubio (R-FL), would significantly amend the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by removing much of the authority currently held by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”).

Under the NLRA, the Board’s General Counsel is responsible for investigating unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges, issuing complaints regarding ULP ...