National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s. 151) (29 CFR Chapter I) (NLRB Regulations) (NLRB) (NLRB Fillable Forms) (NLRB E-File) (NLRB Decisions) (NLRB News Releases) (NLRB Bench Book)
- Under the National Labor Relations Act employees in the private sector have the right:
- to self-organization;
- to form, join or assist labor organizations;
- to engage in other concerted activitiess for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and
- to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. (29 U.S.C. s. 157)
It is an unfair labor practice for an employer:
- to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights;
- to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization;
- by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization;
- to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this statute; or
- to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees. (29 U.S.C. s. 158(a))
It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization:
- to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of their rights, or (B) an employer in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
- to fail to represent employees in a non-discriminatory manner (breaching the duty of fair representation);
- to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of this statute or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
- to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with an employer;
- to interfere with an employer's choice of bargaining representative;
- to require of employees the payment, as a condition to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the NLRB finds excessive or discriminatory;
- to engage in certain secondary boycott activity;
- to engage in activity designed to coerce employees in the selection of their collective bargaining representative; or
- to coerce an employer to pay for services that are not performed. (29 U.S.C. s. 158(b))
The National Labor Relations Board will investigate any unfair labor practice charges filed with it alleging that an employer or a union interfered with these rights.
To be timely unfair labor practices charges must be filed with the National Labor Relations Board within 6 months of the last act of discrimination or retaliation. (29 U.S.C. s. 160(b))
The NLRB also supervises elections to determine whether a majority of an employer's employees wish to have a certain labor organization represent them for purposes of collective bargaining.
No employer can be compelled to deem individuals defined as "supervisors" to be employees for the purpose of any law relating to collective bargaining. (29 U.S.C. s. 164(a))
Nothing in this statute can be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. (29 U.S.C. s. 164(b))
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that when considering the NLRB's request for a preliminary injunction under s. 10(j), district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This test requires a plaintiff to make a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 144 S.Ct. 998 (2024)
On June 1, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer's tort claims alleging that a union intentionally destroyed the employer's property during a labor dispute were not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, 598 U.S. 771, 143 S.Ct. 1404 (2023)
On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by requiring employees under threat of discipline or discharge to attend meetings in which the employer expresses its views on unionization. Amazon Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (11/13/2024)
On November 8, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, clarifying the test that the Board will use to evaluate whether employer predictions about the impact of unionization on the relationship between individual employees and their employer are unlawful threats. To be lawful employer predictions of negative impacts from unionization must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond its control. If such a prediction is not grounded in objective fact, or predicts negative consequences that would result from the employer's own actions, it is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion. Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135 (11/8/2024)
On February 21, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged an employee for refusing to remove the hand-drawn letters "BLM" - the acronym for "Black Lives Matter" - from their work apron. Several other employees at the same store also displayed "BLM" markings on their work aprons at about the same time. Home Depot USA, 373 NLRB No. 25 (2/21/2024)
On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued its final rule addressing the Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status under the National Labor Relations Act, which was to be effective on Februay 26, 2024. Under the new standard, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a group of employees if each entity has an employment relationship with the employees and they share or codetermine one or more of the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, which are defined exclusively as: (1) wages, benefits, and other compensation; (2) hours of work and scheduling; (3) the assignment of duties to be performed; (4) the supervision of the performance of duties; (5) work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline; (6) the tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and (7) working conditions related to the safety and health of employees. Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status
On August 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that an employer's past practice of unilateral changes that was developed under a management-rights clause in a collective-bargaining agreement cannot authorize unilateral changes made after the agreement expires and while bargaining for a new agreement is under way. Tecnocap LLC, 372 NLRB No. 136 (8/26/2023)
On August 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that an employer may never rely on an asserted past practice of making unilateral changes before employees were represented by a union (when the employer had no duty to bargain) to justify unilateral changes after the workers select a bargaining representative. Wendt Corporation, 372 NLRB No. 135 (8/26/2023)
On August 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that the question of whether an employee has engaged in concerted activity is a factual one based on the totality of the record evidence. Miller Plastic Products, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 134 (8/26/2023)
On August 25, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, ruling that when a union requests recognition on the basis that a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have designated the union as their representative, an employer must either recognize and bargain with the union or promptly file an RM petition seeking an election. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (8/25/2023)
On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision, adopting a new legal standard for evaluating employer work rules challenged as facially unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the new standard, the General Counsel must prove that a challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their rights. If the General Counsel does so prove, then the rule is presumptively unlawful. However, the employer may rebut the presumption 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. If the employer proves its defense, then the work rule will be found lawful to maintain. Stericycle Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (8/2/2023)
On June 13, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board modified the independent contractor status and explained that its independent contractor analysis will be guided by a list of common-law factors. The Altanta Opera, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 95 (6/13/2023)
On May 1, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that where an employee's outbursts with inflamatory and insulting language are related to protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act regarding disputes over wages, hours and other working conditions, the employer may not be able to terminate the employee. Lion Elastomers, 372 NLRB No. 83 (5/1/2023)
On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by offering furloughed employees severance conditioned on confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2/21/2023)
On December 13, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that it had the authority to award compensatory damages for all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harm suffered as a result of unfair labor practices. Thryv. Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (12/13/2022)
[ Up ][ Home ] [ Case of the Week ] [ Summaries ] [ Web Sites ] [ About the Author ] [ Contact Us ]