Unanimous Board Determines Make-Whole Relief Is Fundamental
1 min read
Jul 11, 2011
A Florida food products wholesaler unilaterally changed the health care plan for its bargaining unit employees twice in two years. Each change led to increased premiums and copayments for the unionized employees. The administrative law judge (ALJ) and reviewing bodies that subsequently reviewed these facts agreed that the unilateral change violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, but disagreed about the appropriate remedy. The ALJ ordered the wholesaler to: cease and desist from changing the health plan; restore the health coverage in place prior to the unilateral changes, upon the union’s request; and make the employees whole for losses suffered as a result of the unilateral changes. A two-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) modified the remedy to eliminate the make whole relief if the union exercised its option to retain the final unilaterally implemented health insurance plan. The case eventually was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded it after ruling that at least three members must convene in order to exercise the delegated authority of the NLRB. On second review, the four-member NLRB unanimously restored the make whole-relief award, regardless of whether the union requested rescission of the health care plan change. In doing so, the NLRB found that its earlier remedy was based on mechanical adherence to Brooklyn Hospital Center, 344 NLRB 404 (2005), a decision that itself ignored 40 years of NLRB precedent, without explanation. The unanimous NLRB held that a make-whole remedy is a fundamental element of the Board’s remedial approach. Make-whole relief fully compensates employees for economic losses caused by unfair labor practices. Also, it operates as a financial disincentive against the commission of unlawful unilateral changes. Employers should note that unlawful unilateral changes that result in economic losses to unit employees are recoverable independent of a union’s judgment on whether to seek rescission.
Featured Insights

Event
September 27–29, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Discuss Key Compliance and Litigation Issues at the 2026 MBA Conference

Press Release
Sep 24, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2027 “Powerhouse in Litigation” by BTI Consulting

Press Release
Sep 22, 2026
Vaishali Rao Selected as a Global 2026 INvolve Heroes Role Model

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 23, 2026
Another Court Finds the TCPA Does Not Apply to Texts —Time for Supreme Court Intervention?

Press Release
Sep 22, 2026
Min Kang Appointed to the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors

In The News
Sep 22, 2026
Spencer Kook Analyzes California's Liability Influence in the National Insurance Market

In The News
Sep 21, 2026
Marisa Roman Cautions Clickwrap Agreements Are Not Enough to Let Companies Off “Scot-Free”

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty




