Given the variety and complexity of tasks associated with operations management, automated systems, including those utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), are increasingly deployed by businesses to improve overall efficiencies. As part of this effort, the use of AI or related automated systems to track and monitor production, including employee activities, is becoming widespread. A 2022 New York Times survey revealed that eight out of the 10 largest private U.S. employers track individual workers, many in real time, to assess their productivity. Any process that utilizes electronic devices capable of being connected via network technology suddenly becomes a trove of data points that can be used to monitor or improve the process—or the employees engaged in the process.

On October 7, 2024, the Office of the General Counsel issued a new memorandum, GC 25-01, expanding her prosecutorial agenda to remedy what she sees as the harmful effects of non-compete agreements and so-called “stay-or-pay” provisions that violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Last year, General Counsel Abruzzo issued memorandum GC Memo 23-08 stating her position that most non-compete agreements violate the NLRA because they tend to chill the exercise of Section 7 rights. And enforcement efforts against such agreements already underway, in particular a recent complaint issued by the GC. Recently, Region 22 issued a complaint against a building services contractor alleging the use of a no-poach agreement with its building clients violated the NLRA.

Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board issued a new memo, 23-02, over her concerns that electronic surveillance by employers is impairing employees’ ability to engage in protected concerted activity and keeping that activity confidential from their employer. GC Abruzzo refers to case law that is, for the most part, dated

An analysis of the NLRB General Counsel’s Memorandum

Introduction

On June 6, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel (“GC”) released a memorandum providing guidance on the NLRB’s recent decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154. When responding to unfair practice charges involving employer handbook rules, the memo provides employers with an easy to follow roadmap to evaluate the legality of employer handbook language and rules.

Peter Robb, the new General Counsel for the NLRB, issued GC Memo 18-02 on December 1, 2017 that puts the Regional Offices on notice that any “significant legal issues” are to be submitted to Advice. Significant legal issues are defined to “include cases over the last 8 years that overruled precedent and involved one or

Sometimes common sense is not so common. By a Memorandum dated January 31, 2017, the General Counsel of the NLRB has taken the position that student athletes at private colleges and universities are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, notwithstanding the Board’s issuance of its decision of Northwestern University in 2015

On October 3, the National Labor and Relations Board (NRLB) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued a Memorandum from the Division of Operations-Management to all Regional Directors, Officers-In-Charge, and Resident Officers.  This Memo (Memorandum OM 17-02) reveals an aggressive new position from the OGC, one which attempts to overturn decades of Board precedent.

For

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently issued a 30 page report summarizing its position on employer work rules (such as, most commonly, employee handbooks) and providing examples of what does and does not have a “chilling effect” on possible concerted (i.e., potential union) activity as defined by Section 7 of