More on the Trump NLRB and What it Means for Employers

08 January 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Thomas C. Pence

In recent weeks we have commented on the spate of new pro-employer decisions from the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). These decisions, among others, have included:

  • Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017)(reasonable employer policies, such as Boeing’s ban on the use of cameras and cell phones, are lawful),
  • Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, 365 NLRB No. 156 (Dec 14, 2017)(the Board returned to its old rules on joint employer issues),
  • PCC Structural, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (Dec 15, 2017)(reversing the Obama-era rule on micro-units), and
  • Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (Dec 15, 2017)(employer can continue to make health insurance changes post-expiration where they made them pre-expiration).

The Board has also asked for public comment on the Obama Board’s “quickie election” rules, signaling a likely return to the old, longer NLRB election campaigns.

What does all this mean for employers? As we have previously noted, we are likely to continue to see more pro-employer Board decisions over the next few years. During the Obama years, the Board took a dramatic and unprecedented turn to the left, overruling longstanding precedent  in case after case. The Trump Board will no doubt continue to undo many of the Obama-era decisions.

However, this does not mean that employers will have a free hand in doing whatever they want to do when it comes to labor issues. The Board is supposed to be a neutral arbitrator when it comes to labor issues, but in truth, both Republican and Democratic Boards have tended to issue more pro-union decisions than pro-employer decisions in cases involving “routine” unfair labor practice charges.

That is just the nature of what the Board does, and that is not going to change (at least until Congress passes legislation modifying in some way the mission of the Board). It does mean, though, that employers likely no longer need to worry about the sort of radical departures from precedent that occurred during the previous administration on issues like handbooks, permissible campaign activities, and joint employment.

And it should give employers greater confidence when their unions threaten particularly odd unfair labor practice charges.

A recent anecdote may illustrate this point. During a recent bargaining session, a union claimed the employer could not do something – modify health care benefits –  that  it was clearly entitled to do under the terms of the labor agreement, and  the union threatened to file an unfair labor practice charge if the employer took the action. In the past, knowing how sympathetic the Obama Board was to even radical labor law theories, the employer might have at least thought twice about its proposed action.   Instead, in the new era of the Trump Board, the employer simply decided to proceed, confident that longstanding Board precedent would support its action. The bottom line is that a degree of stability has been restored on things like employee handbooks and workplace policies, and  employers can now have much greater confidence as to what they can and cannot do in the labor arena.

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