Articles Discussing Unfair Labor Practices Under The NLRA.

In a 3-2 decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has expanded its own authority to order consequential damages in all cases in which “make whole” relief is appropriate. Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (Dec. 13, 2022).

On October 8, 2021, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) West Los Angeles regional office issued an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint against the Daily Grill for allegedly violating section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by engaging in a pattern of delay intended to frustrate the bargaining

After less than two months in office, new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) Jennifer Abruzzo has urged broad pro-union changes in NLRB case law and has mandated more aggressive remedies in unfair labor practice (ULP) cases. In a September 15, 2021, memo Abruzzo has now taken aim at ULP settlement agreements.

Whether an employer’s unilateral change to employee procedures violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is determined by whether the change “falls within the compass or scope of contract language that grants the employer the right to act unilaterally,” the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has emphasized in a recent case.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has explained the “past practice” analysis it applies in determining whether a unionized employer’s unilateral actions constitute an unlawful change under the NLRB’s decision in Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017). ABF Freight System, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 107 (June 19,

The Division of Judges of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced it is going to resume holding unfair labor practice hearings beginning on June 1, 2020. The Division had postponed all hearings during May for COVID-19-related reasons.

It appears the NLRB expects to hold most hearings remotely, stating it

A union’s dues check off authorization card that unduly restricted an employee’s right to resign union membership violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Division of Advice has decided. Laborers’ Local 980 (Tutor-Perini Corp.), No. 05-CB-229670 (issued July 29, 2019, released

The Department of Labor recently issued a fact sheet intended to help employers understand their retirement plan obligations under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”). The law provides that eligible employees that return to employment following qualified military service must be treated as though their military service was not a break in service for purposes of participation, vesting and benefit accrual under their employer’s retirement plan.[1]

Many employers loathe the prospect of unionization due to the potential of a union hampering such employer’s ability to make operational changes to adapt to business demands. Many employers signatory to a collective bargaining agreement experience firsthand the restrictions of antiquated contract language that prohibit unilateral operational changes.

How the NLRB analyzes defenses to unilateral change unfair labor practice charges may be in for a substantial revision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board order that a company violated the National Labor Relations Act by warning a union steward not to make “frivolous” information requests in the future. Dover Energy, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 14-1197 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 22, 2016). The Court grounded its decision on the language of the disciplinary document, highlighting the importance of meticulous drafting of disciplinary documents where the NLRA may be in play.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) recently ruled that a New Jersey hospital violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to respond to the union’s request for information and by unilaterally changing the dress code for nurses without giving the union notice or an opportunity to bargain.