Employment Law Observer

On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, holding that "captive-audience meetings" are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision reverses 76 years of precedent, which permitted employers to hold such meetings.

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued Memorandum GC 25-01 on October 7, 2024, which establishes her intent to "urge the Board not only to find certain non-compete provisions unlawful, but also, as fully as possible to remedy the harmful effects on employees when employers use and apply them."

On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a district court must employ in deciding whether to implement injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed over fifty years of established precedent on August 25, 2023, when it decided to overrule its 1971 decision in Linden Lumber and reinstate a modified version of its 1949 Joy Silk doctrine. The practical impact of the NLRB's decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC is that recourse to a private ballot election to test a union's claim of majority support may decline. This decision also likely will limit the right of employees to a private ballot election free of coercion as they decide whether to support a union as their exclusive bargaining representative.

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) took aim at non-compete and non-solicitation agreements in Memorandum GC 23-08, issued on May 30, 2023. The General Counsel of the Board, Jennifer Abruzzo, said she believes that except in limited circumstances, the "proffer, maintenance, and enforcement of non-compete agreements" violates Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Memoranda such as this reflect the prosecutorial perspective of the General Counsel's office and direction to the Regional Directors on case handling. That said, Memorandum GC 23-08 is not a decision of the Board, a rule promulgated by the Board under its rule-making authority, or the result of a challenge to a Board decision in federal court. However, it certainly forecasts how this General Counsel and the Regions will assess non-competes and handle unfair labor practice charges involving these covenants.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a controversial decision concerning the use of non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions by employers in separation agreements. In McLaren Macomb and Local 40, RN Staff Council Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Case 07-CA-263041), the NLRB found that including broadly-worded non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in a separation agreement was unlawful, notwithstanding the lack of an intent to chill or limit the exercise of Section 7 rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).

On September 7, 2022 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issued a new Proposed Rule governing joint employer status. The proposed rule seeks to change the standard for determining whether two collaborating employers will be considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (Act). If finalized, the new rule is expected to take effect in 2023.

Voluntary recognition of a union as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees within an identified bargaining unit of the employer can have potentially game-changing consequences for an employer. However, if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) agrees to adopt the position of its General Counsel in a brief filed on April 11th in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, No. 28-CA-230115., the landscape regarding union representation of employees in the workplace will change dramatically. It will become much easier for unions to organize and more difficult for employers to insist upon a private ballot election. Employees also will lose the right to vote in a private ballot election in many situations.

The battle over Scabby the Rat took another turn on July 21, 2021, when the National Labor Relations Board issued its anticipated decision and order in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 and Lippert Components, Inc.

In a Hinshaw Insights for Employers Alert, we consider the drastic revisions to the National Labor Relations Act and federal labor policy contemplated by the Protect the Right to Organize Act of 2021. The bill was passed with little fanfare by the U.S. House of Representatives last month.

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued a Guidance Memorandum (Guidance) on September 4, 2020, addressing the analysis of employer assistance in union organizing efforts. The Guidance has been provided as a response to requests from regional directors on a series of issues relating to the "amount of lawful support an employer can provide to a union that is attempting to organize its employees."

Historically, there has been a "push and pull" between the National Labor Relations Board (Board) and employers over mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers. Although most of the disputes have been resolved by recent SCOTUS jurisprudence, the Board remains concerned with restrictions in arbitration agreements that limit the ability of employees to file unfair labor practice charges before the Board if employees believe their Section 7 rights have been violated.

Following in the footsteps of the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced its Final Rule regarding joint employment. While the NLRB rarely engages in rulemaking, it deemed it necessary in this instance to provide clarity and predictability regarding joint employment. Effective April 27, 2020, the Final Rule rescinds the current test which went into effect in 2015 and reverts back to the prior analysis. This impacts all employers, particularly in the context of collective bargaining, staffing companies, and franchisers.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently remanded a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board"), thus compelling the Board to revisit and clarify its position on the scope of Section 7 protection for speech or conduct which may subject an employer to liability under other statutes, including Title VII. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the Board failed to consider key arguments raised by the employer, namely, the conflict between the Board's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and an employer's obligation to provide a workplace free of unlawful harassment under state and federal equal employment opportunity laws.

Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") issued an important decision, returning to its prior precedent with respect to employee use of employer-provided email for Section 7 purposes. In Caesars Entertainment and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council, the Board overruled the Obama-era decision of Purple Communications, Inc. and returned to the rationale the Board had adopted during the George W. Bush era in Register Guard.

When motive is at issue in resolving certain unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) utilizes the burden-shifting framework established under Wright Line to make a determination. In Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd., the Board took the opportunity to clarify the initial burden of proof required by the General Counsel in light of what it perceived to be confusion over a number of its recent decisions, as well as criticism from a number of federal courts, including, most recently, the Eighth Circuit.

In response to an amicus brief submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to review General Motors LLC, a case which reveals a tension between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding employee racial outbursts during union activity. The EEOC requested the NLRB to change its test for determining whether or not an employee outburst is protected by the NLRA when it includes racially-charged language. The NLRB's decision could provide employers with more flexibility in disciplining employees for racial misconduct during union activity.

Several recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have analyzed the balance between employer property rights and union organization rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). These decisions appear to shift the balance in favor of employers. It is anticipated that the NLRB will propose a rule in the near future clarifying employer property rights in light of the recent decisions that have significantly modified past precedent.

There is an ongoing tension between the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") and employers who seek to expand the use of an arbitration forum to resolve employment disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to endorse the idea that arbitration is both an important part of national labor policy and a reasonable alternative to litigation in court for employment-related disputes. As the Board issues new opinions and interprets guidance from the Supreme Court, employers are in a position to gain better insight and avoid problematic drafting mistakes in arbitration agreements.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") in 2015 created T-Voice, a nationwide program through which customer service representatives could submit "pain points" regarding certain aspects of the job, including ideas to improve customer service. The majority of these pain points addressed customer service issues, such as billing, fraud procedures, access to computer programs, and at times, the type of music customers were subjected to while on hold. Some of the suggestions have led to action being taken by T-Mobile, like requests for device-charging stations, which resulted in T-Mobile installing three stations.