What Past Practice? NLRB Overhauls Back Pay Formula

06 September 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Patrick J. McMahon

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has done it again.

Over the last few years, the NLRB has provided no shortage of topics for us to discuss, because it has made no secret of its aggressive agenda to expand employee protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), making rules and issuing decisions in furtherance of what seems like a thinly veiled agenda to benefit unions in their organizing efforts. Some of these actions have included upsetting decades of consistent precedent in ways that clearly favor unions. This time, the NLRB has departed from practices it has followed since the passage of the NLRA way back in 1935.

Employers may now be responsible for additional costs related to terminated employees’ job searches. In yet another decision where members have split based on political party affiliation, the NLRB has tossed aside more than eight decades of consistency. The NLRB significantly revamped its back pay formula to find that employers can be responsible for the job searching and related costs of employees found to have been terminated by an employer in violation of the NLRA.

The NLRB’s departure from more than three quarters of a century’s rulings centered on a goal of providing a “make-whole” remedy for unlawfully terminated workers. These workers have a duty to mitigate their earnings losses in the form of job searching efforts. Until now, when unlawfully terminated employees sought reimbursement for interim work and job search expenses, that amount would be offset from whatever the employee’s interim earnings were, and in simple terms, these expenses could not exceed the employee’s interim earnings. Additionally, any payments the employee was awarded have traditionally been lumped into taxable net back pay, even though search-for-work and interim employment expenses are non-wage components of back pay.

Under the NLRB’s reinvented rule, search-for-work and interim work expenses will now be treated independently and not be limited by any interim earnings. In other words, unlawfully terminated employees will be entitled to the full costs of these expenses, and employers will be liable for them. Of course, these costs are still subject to proving the expenses were both reasonable and actually incurred. That all said, it remains unclear what effect this decision will have on future litigation. The NLRB even noted in its decision that “Board proceedings have rarely involved litigation over search-for-work and interim employment expenses.” Of course, what the NLRB declined to observe is that parties rarely litigate issues that have been settled for 81 years.

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