NLRA

Subscribe to NLRA via RSS

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.

On June 11, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed that a union violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by refusing to honor employees’ dues revocation requests following a successful deauthorization election. This rare but significant case, Governed United Security Professionals (Golden SVCS, LLC) and Sheldon N. Fraser, sheds light on the…

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.”

It’s become increasingly common for businesses to subcontract workers to perform jobs at a location that is shared with the business or other neutral third parties. When picketing at common job sites shared by the employees of the contractor/employer and the neutral third party, the right of subcontracted employees to engage in collective action at a shared job site must be reconciled with the prohibition on secondary picketing against neutral third parties under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In Service Employees International Union Local 87 v. NLRB (Service Employees International), the Ninth Circuit held that the Board erred in concluding that picketing constituted unlawful secondary picketing where the picketing activity at a shared job site clearly identified the primary employer as the target of the picketing and did not direct coercive activity against neutral third parties.

COVID-19 presents a formidable health and safety challenge to employers, and unionized employers also must address issues in the context of their obligations under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and a collective bargaining agreement. The broad range of issues includes both mandatory subjects of bargaining and business decisions that impact the employees of the bargaining unit. Such issues include health and safety concerns, attendance and staffing issues, wage and hour issues, leave issues, changes in work schedules, layoffs, and temporary reductions in hours or closure of the business to reduce infection rates. Missteps in effectuating these major changes can lead to violations of the NLRA and an increase in the incidence of workers refusing to work. Employer’s ability to navigate these issues successfully requires an understanding of their rights under both the collective bargaining agreement and federal law in this novel situation. Here are some key considerations and proactive measures employers can take to facilitate timely and decisive employment actions.

Recently, the NLRB has issued a number of decisions addressing social media in the workplace as it pertains to employers.  Last month, however, an NLRB judge rendered a decision addressing a Union’s potential liability and responsibilities for social media activities on its own Facebook page.  Interestingly, the judge addressed the posts and comments of the…

On September 28, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its decision in Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 164 (2012).  The NLRB affirmed an Administrative Law Judge’s findings that a car dealership did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) after it terminated a salesperson for his posts on Facebook.   …