The NLRB Hits Just Keep Coming. This Time, Possible Front-Pay

22 January 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

There seems to be no slowing to the NLRB’s unusually high recent activity. As we have written in recent weeks, the Board has recently changed direction with respect to employers handing over witness statements, has asserted that employers are now responsible for extra taxes on back-pay awards, and must now continue dues check following expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. On January 9, 2013, breaking from a long-standing policy, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe E. Solomon recently issued a Memorandum (Memorandum GC 13-2) announcing that front-pay may start to be included in agency settlements. Previously, payments exceeding 100 percent of back-pay were to be set out by private parties in separate agreements. As a result of the change in policy, the NLRB’s Compliance Casehandling Manual, which currently requires that settlement terms that include items such as front-pay be set forth in non-Board “side letters,” will be amended to include front-pay in agency settlements.

The decision to include front-pay in agency settlements reflects what the Board describes as the reality that “a significant number of settlements” approved in recent years include payments to employees at greater than 100 percent of back-pay even though the National Labor Relations Act does not explicitly provide for front-pay as a remedy. However, Mr. Solomon observed that remedies the NLRB may approve as part of a voluntary settlement agreement between the parties are not limited to those that the NLRB would seek in formal proceedings and that utilizing front-pay as a remedy has been well recognized by the courts. Though not specifically acknowledged in the writing, the memorandum suggests that settlement discussions may have an enhanced focus on front-pay issues, but now with some official Board endorsement potentially behind such focus.

The memorandum also revised other sections of the Compliance Casehandling Manual to mandate that any settlement that includes a waiver of reinstatement rights must be in writing and placed in the case file. This overrides the portion of Operations-Management Memorandum 11-61, issued by the NLRB on June 3, 2011, which eliminates the requirement that a waiver of reinstatement rights be in writing.

While Mr. Solomon’s memorandum makes clear that the NLRB’s policy continues to favor reinstatement as the preferred means to resolve unfair labor practices, the policy also recognizes that employees may decide to waive reinstatement in return for compensation and that the Board will put its official stamp of approval on such settlements. The memorandum also clarifies that it is in line with the NLRB’s policy of favoring Board settlements rather than discouraging them.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ