New NLRB: Employers Watch Out
Time 3 Minute Read

President Obama’s recent recess appointments to the NLRB leave one Republican among three liberal Democrats.  Should the opportunity present itself, the Board’s new composition will likely result in the overturning of two employer-friendly cases, Register Guard (email policy) and Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (supervisory status). Overturning either of these cases may produce highly unfavorable results for employers.  The Board already has such an opportunity in Register Guard.  The D.C. Circuit recently remanded Register Guard for reconsideration on a limited basis, but the Board may seize the opportunity to reverse its initial holding.

Under Register Guard, employers may prohibit employees from sending non-job related solicitations using the employer’s email system, including union-related communications.  Register Guard established that employers may prohibit this type of email even if the employer permits employees to send personal messages via email, such as an announcement of someone’s birthday, as long as the employer did not discriminate between union and nonunion communications of a similar nature.

In Oakwood, the Board broadly defined a “supervisor” under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) as a person who assigns work to other employees using independent judgment and discretion.  Supervisors are not protected under the NLRA and can be ordered to assist the employer in its anti-union activities or discharged for assisting a union.  The Board stated that an individual’s judgment is independent where it is not dictated or controlled by instructions, such as employer policies or rules.

Should the Board revisit the holding of either case, the result will most likely be employee- and union-friendly.

In her Register Guard dissent, Board Member Liebman (now Chairman) would have found that “banning all nonwork-related ‘solicitations’ is presumptively unlawful absent special circumstances.”  When considering Register Guard on remand from the D.C. Circuit, the Board may now follow Liebman’s lead.  It will likely hold that the employer cannot preclude employees from using the email system for union-related matters.

  • What can employers do?  Employers should try to prohibit union-related solicitations by strictly prohibiting any personal use of their email systems.  Circuit courts may uphold such a policy even if Register Guard is reversed along Liebman’s interpretive lines.

In the Oakwood dissent, Liebman wrote that an individual should not be classified as a supervisor if the only supervisory duty performed is simply designating a task or tasks. If Oakwood is revisited, the Board will likely interpret “supervisor” less broadly.  This would make it more difficult for employers to classify lead persons who assign duties on a daily basis as supervisors.  Thus, in a union organizing drive, lead persons would be part of the bargaining unit and could advocate unionization to the workers they oversee.

  • What can employers do?  To ensure that lead persons can be classified as supervisors, employers should make sure that they do more than merely assign tasks (e.g. evaluate employees for raises, hire subordinates, make effective recommendations for hire, or authorize time off or overtime).

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

On November 6, 2025, the Eighth Circuit issued its decision in Home Depot U.S.A. v. NLRB, reaffirming the right of employers to prohibit employees (particularly those in customer-facing roles) from wearing politically-charged insignia on their work uniforms. 

Time 5 Minute Read

On July 30, 2025, Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) William B. Cowen (“Cowen”) issued a General Counsel memorandum providing guidance to the NLRB’s Regional Directors on addressing jurisdictional issues between the NLRB and the National Mediation Board (“NMB”).

Time 2 Minute Read

On July 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Apple Inc. v. NLRB (Case No. 24-60242) handed Apple a victory, declining to enforce the NLRB’s ruling that Apple had violated the National Labor Relations Act by unlawfully confiscating union literature left in an employee breakroom. 

Time 6 Minute Read

On May 5, 2025, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) ruled that retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”) violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) when it asked employees involved in an internal investigation regarding sexual harassment allegations to sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting them from discussing details concerning the investigation. The ALJ’s decision highlights considerations employers ought to take into account when balancing their interests in maintaining the integrity of internal investigations and complying with the NLRA.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page