Information for the Public on NLRB Office of the General Counsel Authority for Continuing Operations, Representation Case Processing, and Court Litigation

This provides notice to the public that pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 CFR 102.178, and applicable case law, the NLRB Office of the General Counsel’s Field Offices will continue their normal operations of processing unfair labor practice cases and representation cases. Further, under 29 CFR 102.182 during any period when the Board lacks a quorum “all representation cases may continue to be processed and the appropriate certification should be issued by the Regional Director notwithstanding the pendency of a request for review, subject to revision or revocation by the Board pursuant to a request for review filed in accordance with this subpart.” Finally, under the Board’s 2011 “Order Contingently Delegating Authority to the General Counsel” contained at 76 Federal Register 69768 the General Counsel currently has “full and final authority and responsibility on behalf of the Board to initiate and prosecute injunction proceedings under section 10(j) or section 10(e) and (f) of the Act, contempt proceedings pertaining to the enforcement of or compliance with any order of the Board, and any other court litigation that would otherwise require Board authorization; and to institute and conduct appeals to the Supreme Court by writ of error or on petition for certiorari.” 76 Fed. Reg. 69,768 (2011). Questions about casehandling matters may be directed to the NLRB’s Field Offices.

General Counsel Abruzzo Issues Memo on Harmonizing the NLRA and EEO Laws

You are subscribed to Press Releases for National Labor Relations Board. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. General Counsel Abruzzo Issues Memo on Harmonizing the NLRA and EEO Laws 01/16/2025 11:23 AM EST January 16, 2025 Today, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo to all field offices on the harmonization of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws. The memorandum emphasizes the importance of complying with all requirements of the NLRA and the EEO laws and offers suggestions in certain key areas on how to effectuate compliance and ensure that employees receive full protections under the laws. Specifically, it addresses and provides examples for complying with both bodies of law in three key areas—workplace civility rules, investigative confidentiality policies, and employee speech or conduct in the context of NLRA-protected activity that could potentially implicate federal EEO law. “In workplaces across the country, the NLRA and the EEO laws routinely operate in harmony, often in furtherance of shared goals and with reliance on shared principles. Such harmonization is possible because neither body of law sets forth absolutes in areas of potential overlap. Each leaves space for the other to operate,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “Regulated parties thus can and must understand and comply with both sets of laws. Importantly, they should not purport to invoke their obligations under one to avoid their responsibilities under the other.”

NLRB General Counsel Issues Updated Representation Case Guidance

January 17, 2025 Today, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued updated guidance on representation cases, including an updated version of the Office of the General Counsel’s Outline of Law and Procedure in Representation Cases (“Outline”), the Casehandling Manual Part Two on Representation Proceedings, and an Operations-Management Memorandum. The Outline is a guidance document detailing developments in Board election and representation law and serves as a research tool. Originally issued in the early 1960s, the last major revision to the Outline was in 2017, and the NLRB has issued updated supplements for each subsequent year. The 2025 revision includes developments related to: jurisdiction, unit clarification petitions, and unit-determination and community-of-interest principles, among others. The Outline also reflects recent rulemaking by the Board. The 2025 Outline was edited by Terence G. Schoone-Jongen, Director of the Board’s Office of Representation Appeals. The Outline and other resources can be found under “Manuals and Guides” on the NLRB’s website. General Counsel Abruzzo also issued an OM Memorandum to all Field Offices related to updating the Casehandling Manual Part Two and summarizing Agency procedures regarding mail ballot elections. The memo also clarifies processes regarding RM petitions, and incorporates the changes resulting from the Board’s Fair Choice-Employee Voice Rule. “I have no doubt that the Outline will prove to be an invaluable resource for labor law practitioners, workers and their representatives, employers, academics/legal researchers and other members of the public,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “Overall, these resources will assist greatly in effectuating our important mission of protecting workers’ rights to engage together and collectively bargain through representatives of their free choosing.”

Jenkins v. Dermatology Management

An arbitration agreement between a worker and employer was procedurally unconscionable where it was pre-signed by a representative of the employer who was not present when the worker received it, as a reasonable person in the worker’s position would have concluded that the agreement was a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment that could not be modified or refused; a complaining party need not show it tried to negotiate standardized contract terms to establish procedural unconscionability. The agreement was substantively unconscionable where it required the worker to arbitrate all of her claims against the employer but exempted certain claims by the employer, the agreement shortened the statute of limitations for the worker’s claims, it required the parties to equally share the costs of arbitration, and it limited the scope of discovery. Jenkins v. Dermatology Management - filed Nov. 20, 2024, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2024, Second District, Div. Six Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3823 Full text click here >An arbitration agreement between a worker and employer was procedurally unconscionable where it was pre-signed by a representative of the employer who was not present when the worker received it, as a reasonable person in the worker’s position would have concluded that the agreement was a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment that could not be modified or refused; a complaining party need not show it tried to negotiate standardized contract terms to establish procedural unconscionability. The agreement was substantively unconscionable where it required the worker to arbitrate all of her claims against the employer but exempted certain claims by the employer, the agreement shortened the statute of limitations for the worker’s claims, it required the parties to equally share the costs of arbitration, and it limited the scope of discovery. Jenkins v. Dermatology Management - filed Nov. 20, 2024, publication ordered Dec. 19, 2024, Second District, Div. Six Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3823 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B333759.

Winston v. County of Los Angeles

Trial court erred in denying successful whistleblower retaliation litigant's Labor Code Section 1102.5(j) attorney fees' request when amended provision could be applied retroactively. READ MORE

Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing - filed Dec. 2, 2024, Second District, Div. Eight

Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98(a) was inapplicable where the parties did not submit to arbitration pursuant to any pre-dispute agreement; the drafting party for purposes of §1281.98 is the employer or company that drafted the pre-dispute arbitration agreement binding the employee. Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing - filed Dec. 2, 2024, Second District, Div. Eight Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3783 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B327111

Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills - filed Dec. 3, 2024, Second District, Div. One

Employment Law Equitable estoppel barred a worker from avoiding arbitration with corporate entities related to his direct employer, with whom he had an arbitration agreement, where the only possible liability for those other corporate entities was his theory that they were joint employers who shared in his direct employer’s legal obligations. Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills - filed Dec. 3, 2024, Second District, Div. One Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3793 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1224//B331083.