Labor Law & NLRB

Subscribe to Labor Law & NLRB via RSS

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) made the inevitable official when it recently held that employee attendance at employer-mandated meetings where employers express their views on potential unionization– often referred to as “captive-audience meetings” – violate the National Labor Relations Act. The decision overturns a 1948 Board decision and renders unlawful conduct that had been deemed lawful by the Board for more than 75 years.Continue Reading The NLRB Overturns Decades-Old Precedent by Banning Captive-Audience Meetings

As we noted in Part I of this special two-part blog, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued an important policy memorandum last month. In GC Memorandum 25-01, Abruzzo attacked as unlawful both “stay-or-pay” provisions (where workers agree to repay their employer for certain benefits if the employee prematurely leaves employment) and non-compete agreements. Part I covered the remedies proposed by the GC for employees subject to non-compete provisions found unlawful by the Board. Here, Part II addresses stay-or-pay provisions, the GC’s legal position that such provisions are presumptively unlawful, and the remedies she will seek for employees subject to stay-or-pay provisions.Continue Reading NLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part II

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued an important policy memorandum this week. In GC Memorandum 25-01, Abruzzo asserts that most “stay-or-pay” provisions, where workers agree to repay their employer for certain benefits if the employee prematurely leaves employment, should be found unlawful unless narrowly tailored. The memo also sets forth broad remedies GC Abruzzo intends to seek if such provisions are held unlawful. In addition, following up on her memo that most non-compete agreements are unlawful, GC Abruzzo laid out the remedies she will seek from the Board where it holds that an employer has unlawfully enforced or applied a non-compete agreement.

This special two-part blog will cover both subjects. In this edition, we will cover the remedies proposed by the GC for employees subject to non-compete provisions found unlawful by the Board. Next week, Part II of this blog will address stay-or-pay provisions, the GC’s legal position that such provisions are presumptively unlawful, and the remedies she will seek for employees subject to stay-or-pay provisions.Continue Reading NLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part I

With less than three months until the 2024 presidential election, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union filed unfair labor practice charges against the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump – which, of course, employs workers – and Tesla, Elon Musk’s automotive company. The charges stem from statements made during Musk’s Monday interview of Trump on Musk’s social media platform, X (nee Twitter).Continue Reading No, You Can’t Fire Employees for Threatening to Strike!

When work went fully remote, employers worried about how they could ensure that employees were clocking their required hours. Meeting deadlines and producing work were evidence that employees were on task, but what about jobs that were less quantifiable, and longer-term projects that did not yield immediate results? What about bosses who just wanted to know “butts” remained in “seats”?Continue Reading A Game of Cat and Mouse: Are Your Remote Workers Really Productive?

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overruled its 1984 Chevron decision, which required federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under the new rule, announced in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts reviewing an agency action must independently decide whether an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is correct. However, when a statute delegates discretionary authority to an agency, courts must respect that delegation, while making sure that the agency acts within its delegated authority. The Loper Bright decision is a big win for businesses and other organizations who believe that federal agencies – including workplace agencies like the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – have too much power.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Undermines Federal Agency Authority, With Impact on the Workplace

For those of us labor attorneys who represent management in labor relations, there was a bit of schadenfreude (i.e. pleasure in another’s misfortune) with the news that employees engaged in a strike due to unfair labor practices allegedly committed by their employer – who happens to be both a union and unionized!  Oh, the irony….Continue Reading So, A Union’s Own Unionized Workers Go On Strike…

In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Supreme Court held that a more stringent test applied to lawsuits filed by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) that seek injunctions to halt serious labor violations.  While the decision directs district courts to adopt the tightened standard, several circuits, including the Fourth Circuit, have already been consistently applying the higher standard.   Continue Reading NLRB Injunctions Are Now More Difficult to Obtain, At Least in Some Jurisdictions

On April 8, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued GC Memo 24-04, providing yet another memorandum broadening remedies for employees that have been wrongfully discharged for engaging in union or other protected concerted activity.  In this memo, GC Abruzzo encouraged Regions to pursue make-whole remedies for all employees, including those not identified in an unfair labor practice investigation, allegedly harmed by the unlawful rules or contract terms. Continue Reading General Counsel Abruzzo’s Latest Memorandum Encourages a Further Expansion of Remedies for Employees

As our associate Evan Conder reported in a blog post last month, a Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board issued a game-changing decision that players on Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team are “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The players then voted (13-2) to unionize. But now, Dartmouth is refusing to negotiate with the players’ chosen representative, the Service Employees International Union, Local 560. Continue Reading So, Dartmouth Won’t Play Ball with the Union…