Labor & Employment

Settling cases before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) became an increasingly difficult task under the prior administration, where the terms of agreements were often dictated by General Counsel directives insisting on specific remedies, types of remedies, or specific terms in agreements. For employers and labor attorneys seeking to resolve cases, pursuing a settlement was often a frustrating process, with too much time spent trying to work around these directives to facilitate an equitable settlement. Frequently, the directives meant cases did not settle until administrative law judges were assigned and hearings scheduled. These delays increased costs, heightened conflict, and did little to encourage labor peace. A new GC memo issued on Friday, May 16, 2025, will help change that.

Employers in the United States received a significant win on March 8, 2024, when a federal court in Texas struck down the National Labor Relations Board’s (“Board”) expansive new “joint employer” rule, and upheld the existing (and more employer-friendly) 2020 rule. This rule would have expanded the circumstances under which two businesses could be designated as “joint employers,” and that could have significantly altered the legal landscape attendant to various workplace relationships.

Historically, the banking and finance industry has operated without much union interference. However, under the current guidance of Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), the tides are turning toward unionization in sectors previously not considered ripe for union organizing, including banking and finance.

On May 1, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its decision in Lion Elastomers and United Steelworkers, making it more difficult for employers to discipline employees for outbursts and similar misconduct while employees are engaged in protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

It is not often that the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) gives employers a heads-up before it makes broad, and often burdensome, changes, but a recently issued ALJ decision might be the exception to the rule. Earlier this year, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in Saint Leo University, Inc., 12-CA-275612 (2023) reinforcing how the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) is applied to religious educational institutions, however, the briefing in the case indicated how that application might change in the near future.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of Americans “approve of labor unions,” up three percentage points from 2021.

This represents a generational high-water mark for union support – the last time Gallup measured a higher union approval rating among the American public was 1959 when 73 Americans approved of labor unions. Prior to this year, union support had remained lower than 70% ever since union support dropped to 66 percent in 1967. The low-water mark was reached in 2009 when unions enjoyed only 48% support from the American public.

On August 29, 2022, the NLRB issued its decision in Tesla, Inc., overruling precedent that allowed employers to enforce facially-neutral dress codes to prohibit wearing non-conforming attire, including union insignia and union logos. Now, employers must allow employees to wear union attire absent a showing of “special circumstances.”

The Labor Law Insider continues the discussion in this podcast episode with Tom Godar, Tom O’Day, Terry Potter and Rufino Gaytán on actions employers should take proactively to deter unions from garnering employee support in the workplace. Shifting social issues in and outside the workplace along with significant public support for labor unions subject all…

During the last half of May 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued four decisions upholding the legality of employer facially neutral work rules. Two of the decisions applied the Boeing standard to assess the legality of work rules or policies while the other two decisions restored past precedent to find that an employers’ property rights outweighed employees’ right to engage in protected activities under §7 of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The key highlights of those decisions, including guidance on  drafting work rules and policies that are lawful under the Boeing standard, are summarized below.

Key Points

  • Media policies which prohibit employees from communicating with the media must be narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests such as protecting confidential information and controlling statements made on behalf of the employer; and
  • Media policies that specifically exclude communications by employees that are not made on behalf of the employer and that

…