National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Member Gwynne Wilcox is out of a job for the third time in less than four months. Continue Reading Chief Justice Roberts Allows Trump to Remove Wilcox from NLRB as the Supreme Court Considers the Challenge to Her Dismissal
On April 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that President Trump’s termination of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox was unlawful. The decision marks the latest round in litigation tug-of-war, reversing a decision reached by a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit, and returning to a decision reached by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 6, 2025. For an in-depth summary of the facts and the constitutional issues at stake, please refer to our initial reports on the district court’s ruling here, and subsequent reversal by the three-judge panel here. Continue Reading Full D.C. Circuit Court Reinstates Wilcox to the NLRB
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a favorable ruling for President Trump, staying a recent district court decision that ruled his termination of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox was unlawful. Thus, it appears that the Board again is left without statutory quorum, which under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) requires at least three members.Continue Reading Split D.C. Circuit Panel Rules Trump Can Remove Wilcox from NLRB – NLRB to Stay Without a Quorum
On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell held that Gwynne Wilcox, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) was “illegally” fired from her job.[1] The court ordered the Board’s current chair to restore her access to the Board and let her serve out the remainder of her five-year term. The Trump administration promptly appealed the decision and is seeking an immediate stay from a federal appeals court.[2] However, in the meantime, Wilcox’s return will give the Board three active members. Thus, for now, it appears that the Board again has a statutory quorum under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) and can resume operating as normal.Continue Reading Federal District Court Reverses Firing of NLRB Member Wilcox – NLRB Returns to Statutory Quorum
As discussed in our recent article, the introduction of SB 399 in California (approved and added as California Labor Code section 1137) sparked significant discussion and concern among California employers with union employees. The legislation, which became effective January 1, 2025, restricts so-called “captive audience meetings” by prohibiting employers from discharging or disciplining employees for refusing to attend mandatory employer-sponsored meetings. Many employers believe the law unnecessarily restrains their ability to communicate effectively and transparently with employees about important issues.Continue Reading Mandatory Captive Rules in Limbo for California Employers – 2 Federal Lawsuits Challenge SB 399 and Looming Issue Before the NLRB
On February 14, 2025, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) William B. Cowen issued his first General Counsel Memorandum (“GC Memo”) GC 25-05 rescinding nearly all of the Biden administration General Counsel’s substantive prosecutorial guidance memos, which furthered a pro-union and pro-employee agenda. While these memoranda do not have the weight of law or regulation, they do set out the agency’s priorities and key interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).Continue Reading Acting General Counsel of NLRB Issues First GC Memorandum, Rescinding Controversial Pro-Labor Memoranda
As we have previously reported, from the time President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) began systematically reversing Trump-era policies, and shifting toward increasingly more pro-union and pro-employee policies. These efforts have not been slowed by the impending end of the Biden administration. On December 10, 2024, the NLRB overruled a Trump-era Board decision and returned to an employee- and union-friendly standard for determining when unilateral workplace changes made by an employer are unlawful.Continue Reading NLRB Returns to Union-Friendly “Clear and Unmistakable Waiver” Standard
A federal judge in Texas recently cast new doubt on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ability to oversee labor disputes, agreeing with SpaceX that the agency’s Board Members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are likely serving unconstitutionally.Continue Reading Texas Judge Enjoins NLRB From Proceeding Against SpaceX, Casting Further Doubt on NLRB’s Constitutionality
On March 8, 2024, a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dealt a serious blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) efforts to further increase the reach of the National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA”). Judge J. Campbell Barker struck down a final rule issued by the Board that would have drastically broadened the standard the Board applies to determine when employers are joint-employers for the purposes of federal labor law. The blow was delivered three days before the rule was set to take effect on March 11, 2024 following a 14-day stay order also issued by Judge Barker. Continue Reading Federal Judge’s Decision Deals Serious Blow to NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule and Continued Efforts to Expand Who Constitutes an Employer Under the NLRA
As we previously reported and discussed here, the Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC ruling has dramatically changed the threshold that will prompt the National Labor Relation Board (“NLRB”) to issue mandatory bargaining orders and is going to have a significant impact on the manner in which employers may respond to union organizing efforts. As the NLRB held in Cemex, if a union demands voluntary recognition based on a showing of majority support, the employer has two choices, which it must exercise within two weeks: (i) recognize and bargain with the union, or (ii) file a RM-Petition to initiate the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election. If the employer chooses the latter, and commits an unfair labor practice during the election period, the NLRB likely will require the employer to recognize and bargain with the union.Continue Reading Judge Issues First Post-Cemex Bargaining Order Despite Employer Winning Union Election
On August 31, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) adopted a broader test for what is considered “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”). Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, otherwise known as “protected concerted activity” or “PCA.” Whether an employee’s conduct qualifies as “concerted” depends on whether their activity is linked to those of other employees. On the other hand, whether the employee’s activity is for “mutual aid or protection” focuses on whether the employee(s) involved are seeking to improve their conditions of employment. This standard applies to union and union-free settings. Continue Reading NLRB Expands Scope of What Is Considered Protected Concerted Activity in Workplaces