Employers Win: The NLRB Gives Up Fight for Controversial Workplace Posters

13 January 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On January 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced that it would not petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review two appeals court decisions striking down its rule requiring private sector businesses to hang posters advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The decision not to challenge either appeals court rulings essentially means that the so-called “poster rule” will not go into effect.

As you may recall, in approximately May 2011, the NLRB promulgated a controversial Notice Posting Rule, which would have required most private sector employers to post a notice of employee rights in the workplace. Frequent readers of Foley’s Legal News: Employment Law Updates will also recall that in May 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the poster rule. In June 2014, the Fourth Circuit also ruled against the NLRB, sustaining the second challenge to the poster rule in a case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

In its announcement, the NLRB affirmed its commitment to its outreach program to educate employees of their rights under the NLRA. The NLRB also noted that the poster is available on its website for anyone to access voluntarily.

Please note that this alert does not pertain to the related rule issued by the Department of Labor that federal contractors and subcontractors provide notice to employees of their rights under the NLRA as a term of receiving a federal contract. This rule is presently being challenged in a pending lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.