NLRB

On June 11, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a very short but interesting decision in Governed United Security Professionals (Golden SVCS, LLC) and Sheldon N. Fraser, 373 NLRB No. 66 (June 11, 2024), affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that a union violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it refused to recognize employees’ dues revocation requests after a successful deauthorization election. Deauthorization elections are rare, and this decision is a ripe opportunity to review the specific facts of this case and remind employers about this arcane but significant procedural NLRA vehicle.

United States National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

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.

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued its anticipated ruling in Stericycle, Inc., reversing the Trump-era Boeing decision that famously implemented a three-category test for balancing whether workplace rules unlawfully interfered with employees’ rights to engage in “protected concerted activity” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

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.

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…

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.”

It has become increasingly apparent that the Biden Administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is aggressively pushing labor-friendly positions, like those seen under the Obama Administration.

Now it appears the NLRB’s General Counsel has taken aim at Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), and in so doing undermines 75 years of jurisprudence as “incorrectly concluded.”

On April 7, 2022, the NLRB announced the General Counsel’s desire to restrict employers’ ability to speak to their employees about unions, whether in so-called “captive audience” meetings, or whether “cornered by management while performing their job duties.” The General Counsel claims such meetings and conversations “inherently involve an unlawful threat that employees will be disciplined or suffer other reprisals if they exercise their protected right not to listen to such speech.”