Category: Management/union relations

New Jersey Steps Into Fray, Bans Mandatory Employee Meetings

David G. Rodriguez and Derek E. Schultz ●

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law significant amendments to the New Jersey Employer Political Communication Restrictions Act (the “Act”) on September 3, 2025. These amendments, which take effect on December 2, 2025, make New Jersey one of 12 states in the nation to prohibit employers from holding captive audience meetings to discuss unionization with employees.

KEY PROVISIONS

The Act Will Prohibit Employers from Holding Mandatory Meetings on Unionization

Employers and their agents will be prohibited from requiring employees to attend meetings or participate in communications where the purpose is to convey the employer’s opinion about unionization. This restriction will apply to all employers in New Jersey, including those in both the private and public sectors.

Continue reading “New Jersey Steps Into Fray, Bans Mandatory Employee Meetings”

NLRB Overturns Two Decades-Old Precedents Relating to What Employers Can Say to Employees Regarding Views on Unions

Anthony B. Haller and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

With a new administration looming, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) recently issued two decisions that radically depart from established law about what an employer can say and how an employer can lawfully meet with its employees during a union organizing campaign.

  • Employers have always been able to tell employees that one of the disadvantages of unions is that they impede direct dealing between the company and its employees. This is because employees give up their individual rights in favor of exclusive collective representation by the union, and it puts a third party in the middle of the employment relationship. Despite this being an obvious truism, depending on what is said by the company, this may now be illegal under the Board’s decision in Siren Retail Corp. dba Starbucks and Workers United affiliated with Service Employees International Union (“Starbucks”).

  • Employers have always been able to have a mandatory meeting—the so-called “captive audience meeting”—of all employees in the bargaining unit at least 24 hours before a union representation election to make its case for why it believes that a union is unnecessary for the employees. These meetings have been among the top tools employers use to fend off union organizing campaigns. This type of mandatory meeting is now illegal under the Board’s decision in Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Labor Union (“Amazon”).

Time will tell if these decisions hold up under the new administration; but, for now, they are the law.

Continue reading “NLRB Overturns Two Decades-Old Precedents Relating to What Employers Can Say to Employees Regarding Views on Unions”

Oops, the NLRB Does It Again—The Handbook Police Are Back!

Jason E. Reisman ●

Just yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision (Stericycle Inc.), which overrules its own 2017 Boeing Co. decision and establishes a new standard for evaluating employer handbook policies and rules under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Welcome (back) to what is the revolving door decision-making process that is the political machine of the NLRB.

Effectively, the current Biden NLRB has reversed one of the hallmark decisions of the Trump NLRB. When the Trump NLRB decided Boeing Co., it seemed to strike a balance in evaluating workplace rules, weighing the rule’s impact on workers’ NLRA rights against the employer’s legitimate business justification for the rule.

Although the concept of balancing those two potentially competing interests seems rational, the current NLRB Chair, Lauren McFerran, said that “Boeing gave too little consideration to the chilling effect that work rules can have on workers’ Section 7 rights.” NLRB Press Release 8/2/23. Taking that view to the extreme, the NLRB has shifted the bulk of the burden to employers to establish the legitimacy of the work rule. Under Stericycle, the most important consideration in evaluating a workplace rule is how an employee would understand it—not how the employer or a neutral third party might. The NLRB’s new approach is evident in this passage from the decision:

We clarify that the Board will interpret the rule from the perspective of an employee who is subject to the rule and economically dependent on the employer, and who also contemplates engaging in protected concerted activity. Consistent with this perspective, the employer’s intent in maintaining a rule is immaterial. Rather, if an employee could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning, the General Counsel will carry her burden, even if a contrary, noncoercive interpretation of the rule is also reasonable.

372 NLRB No. 113, p.2 (emphasis added). Incredibly, if an employee could interpret the rule to chill the exercise of NLRA rights, the rule is presumed unlawful. The only way for an employer to rebut that presumption is “by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.” Id. If the employer can prove both of those, the work rule will be found lawful. Good luck.

The deck is now stacked against employer work rules that have any potential ambiguity in the mind of an employee. Given the energy and zeal demonstrated by the NLRB General Counsel in seeking to hold employers accountable, it is reasonable to presume that the NLRB “handbook police” will return, leaving almost no handbook completely safe from attack. Employers should expect to see more scrutiny given to work rules and policies, especially those particularly sensitive ones such as anti-harassment and workplace conduct policies.

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Companies the Right to Sue Unions for Intentional Property Damage Resulting from Labor Strikes

Garrett P. Buttrey, Andrew I. Herman, and Anthony B. Haller  ●


On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an 8-1 opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters, finding that conduct intentionally undertaken to cause damage to the employer’s property, or the failure to reasonably protect against such foreseeable damage, is not activity that is “arguably protected” under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and that a union can be held liable for the damage caused.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174, represented drivers for Glacier Northwest in its concrete mixing and delivery business. After the collective bargaining agreement expired without a reaching a new agreement, the union called a strike, but waited to commence the strike until after the company filled its trucks with wet concrete. The union then instructed the truck drivers to ignore the company’s orders to deliver the wet concrete, putting the trucks and the concrete in imminent, foreseeable danger of being damaged and lost if the concrete hardened. Several of the union drivers abandoned their trucks without giving Glacier any notice, causing the company to deploy emergency measures to salvage the trucks by dumping—and wasting—the large batches of concrete the company mixed.

Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court Grants Companies the Right to Sue Unions for Intentional Property Damage Resulting from Labor Strikes”

NLRB GC Declares (Virtually) All Non-Compete Agreements Illegal

Jason E. Reisman  ●

Snapshot Summary

Yes, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel (“GC”) says virtually all non-compete agreements are illegal. However, although this is the GC’s strong personal view, she does not directly make the law or establish precedent—NLRB action is still required to start that process. Even if the NLRB acts, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) only covers non-supervisory employees. This is something to monitor, but not something that should cause you to automatically refrain from strategic and reasonable use of non-compete agreements. And, yes, it coincidentally aligns with the proposed rule from the Federal Trade Commission (see our prior alert here).

Background

Though employers uniformly do not enjoy listening to the ruminations of NLRB GC Jennifer Abruzzo, it is clear that all employers need to pay very close attention to what she says and how she says it. The latest off-the-wall proclamation came in a May 30 memorandum, where she asserted her position that non-compete provisions contained in employment contracts and severance agreements nearly always violate federal labor law by preventing former employees from working for competitors. Notably, she previewed this position in March when she issued another memo providing “guidance” on severance agreement provisions in the wake of the NLRB’s McLaren Macomb decision (see our prior blog post here).

Continue reading “NLRB GC Declares (Virtually) All Non-Compete Agreements Illegal”

NLRB’s General Counsel Foreshadows More Expansive Restrictions on Separation Agreements Following the Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision

Andrew I. Herman, Garrett P. Buttrey, and Jason E. Reisman


Overview: On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or Board) found two routinely standard separation agreement provisions—confidentiality as to the agreement and non-disparagement—to be unlawful when included in an agreement offered to an employee. McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). This week NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued guidance in an effort to clarify the scope and impact of that decision. The General Counsel’s guidance takes an expansive view of McLaren Macomb, foreshadowing more restrictions on separation agreement and other employment agreements.

In McLaren Macomb, the NLRB held that employers violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when they offer severance agreements with provisions that would restrict employees in the exercise of their NLRA rights. The Board explained that, where an agreement “unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the [NLRA] because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the exercise” of NLRA rights.

NLRB General Counsel Takes an Expansive View of McLaren Macomb

The guidance from General Counsel Abruzzo—the chief investigator and prosecutor of violations of the NLRA—is a warning to employers about her expansive views of the reach of the McLaren Macomb decision. In her memorandum, the General Counsel provides the following insight about McLaren Macomb’s broader implications:

Continue reading “NLRB’s General Counsel Foreshadows More Expansive Restrictions on Separation Agreements Following the Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision”

Biden Administration Prioritizing Federal Contractor Workforce Protections

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Protection of the workforce is a major focus of the Biden Administration. Rather than attempting to pass new legislation or amend existing statutes, the path of least resistance in the short term appears to be the use of executive orders to implement or, as here, rescind Trump Administration Executive Orders and put into effect many of the same policies as the Obama Administration. The starting point for the Biden Administration is to take the steps to implement rules with respect to the federal workforce and the workforce performing federal government contracts.

One of President Biden’s first actions in office was to direct federal government agencies to start the work to permit implementation of certain changes within the first 100 days of the administration through further executive action. These initiatives most likely will include an increased federal contractor minimum wage, requirements to offer employment to employees of an incumbent contractor, perhaps requiring contractors to disclose labor violations when seeking federal contracts, and increased Service Contract Act (“SCA”) enforcement.

      • President Biden’s Executive Order 14003 on Protecting the Federal Workforce issued on January 22, among other requirements, directed the Office of Management and Budget to make recommendations regarding establishing a $15 minimum wage for federal employees and federal contractors and subcontractors (the current federal contractor minimum wage is $10.95) and to provide employees with emergency paid leave.
      • President Biden’s Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government issued on January 20 revoked President Trump’s controversial Executive Order prohibiting certain types of workplace diversity trainings for federal government contractors.
Continue reading “Biden Administration Prioritizing Federal Contractor Workforce Protections”

No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!

Stephen E. Tisman

In July, we reported that the New York State Legislature had passed a bill that could substantially alter the legal landscape of wage disputes by allowing employees with wage claims to file liens against their employers’ assets in the amount of the claim. The lien could be filed without any court order or determination of probable liability. The bill further permitted attachments of the employer’s property and would have expanded the personal liability of the 10 largest shareholders of non-public companies by making them liable not only for wages, but also for interest, penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On January 1, 2020, anxious employers got a reprieve—albeit a temporary one—when Governor Cuomo vetoed the legislation. Continue reading “No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!”

New York Closes in on Comprehensive Employee Wage Lien Law

Mara B. Levin, Anthony A. Mingione, and Stephen E. Tisman

New York is on the precipice of passing a law that would allow employees to easily file liens against an employer’s property in connection with pending wage disputes. The bill also would permit employee access to certain sensitive employer records and expand the scope of personal liability for owners in disputes over wages. Employers should monitor these developments and work with counsel to prepare an action plan should this bill become law.

The New York State Legislature has recently passed a bill that could substantially alter the legal landscape of wage disputes if signed into law by Governor Cuomo. The proposed Employee Wage Lien bill would allow employees to obtain liens against an employer’s real property and personal property based on allegations involving nonpayment of wages. If signed into law, the bill will become effective within 30 days. Similar laws have been enacted on other states.

The law will allow employees to file a notice of a lien up to three years following the end of the employment giving rise to the wage claim. Employees will be able to place liens up to the total amount allegedly owed based on claims relating to overtime compensation, minimum wage, spread of hours pay, call-in pay, uniform maintenance, unlawful wage deductions, improper meal or tip credits or withheld gratuities, unpaid compensation due under an employment contract, or a claim that the employer violated an existing wage order. In addition, the State Attorney General and Department of Labor will be able to obtain a lien on behalf of an individual employee—or a class of employees—against an employer that is the subject of an investigation, court proceeding, or agency action.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Quick Flashback—NLRB Overruled Obama Board’s “Independent Contractor” Test

Rosemary McKenna

Earlier this year, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”)—with its 3-to-1 Republican-appointed majority—returned to its long-standing common-law test for determining whether workers are independent contractors (“ICs”) or employees, expressly overruling an Obama-era decision, which it said impermissibly altered the test by severely limiting the significance of “entrepreneurial opportunity” to the analysis. The importance of “independent contractor” status lies in the fact that ICs are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

In SuperShuttle DFW, Inc. and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1338 (Case No. 16-RC-010963), the Trump Board addressed the issue of whether franchisees who operated shared-ride vans were ICs and thus excluded from coverage under the NLRA. Relying on common-law agency analysis, the Board upheld a regional director’s decision finding the franchisees to be ICs. That traditional common-law analysis involves application and consideration of the following factors: Continue reading “Quick Flashback—NLRB Overruled Obama Board’s “Independent Contractor” Test”