The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) establishes a framework that governs the interactions between employers, employees, and labor unions.
Central to this framework is the role of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who is responsible for deciding whether to pursue administrative complaints related to unfair labor practices.
Acting as the main prosecutor for the NLRB, the General Counsel selects cases that are ripe for adjudication, particularly those that could raise new legal questions or challenge existing federal labor policies.
Recent Actions by the NLRB General Counsel
During her time as NLRB General Counsel under the Biden Administration, Jennifer Abruzzo made headlines by issuing over two dozen guidance memoranda, known as “GC Memos.” These memos aimed to reinterpret various aspects of the NLRA, often stirring up debate as they addressed previously overlooked areas.
For instance, in a notable 2021 memo, Abruzzo declared that scholarship athletes at private universities should be classified as employees, thereby granting them the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining protected by the NLRA.
In a 2023 memo, she took a firm stance against certain non-competition clauses and training repayment agreements, labeling them as violations of the NLRA, and indicating her commitment to pursuing enforcement actions.
Additionally, some memos laid out a revised approach for settlement negotiations, insisting that agreements must provide full remedies, which complicated pre-complaint resolutions.
Transition to New Leadership
However, after Donald Trump assumed the presidency, he removed Ms.
Abruzzo from her position.
It is standard for incoming General Counsels to reverse the previous administration’s policies, and this trend continued on February 14, 2025, when William Cowen, the current Acting General Counsel, released his own inaugural memo.
Cowen’s document rescinded 15 of Abruzzo’s memos outright and placed another 13 under review.
This included the revocation of guidance related to student athletes, non-compete agreements, and comprehensive settlements, as well as previous directives that encouraged proactive federal court interventions and robust enforcement of the NLRA.
Future Implications for the NLRB
Cowen’s changes, though expected, were accompanied by significant remarks regarding the volume of cases facing the NLRB.
He suggested that Abruzzo’s broad initiatives to expand the NLRA’s reach and her innovative legal theories may have contributed to the NLRB’s overwhelming backlog.
Cowen raised concerns that addressing every potential issue could hinder effectiveness, implying that Abruzzo’s ambitious reforms might have stalled progress.
In the immediate aftermath of Cowen’s actions, it seems likely that the NLRB will shift away from pursuing cases based on Abruzzo’s interpretations.
This pivot could enable employers facing unfair labor practice charges to negotiate resolutions more quickly and on potentially more favorable terms than what was typical during Abruzzo’s tenure.
Looking ahead, further changes are on the horizon, especially with the expectation that the NLRB will eventually be staffed with members appointed by the Republican party.
At present, the board has only two members, preventing it from making key decisions on unfair labor practices or representation cases.
With no new appointments announced, it’s still unclear when the NLRB will regain full operational capacity.
Once it does, the new General Counsel is likely to focus on cases that reassess some of the more controversial decisions from the Biden Administration, which may involve re-evaluating employer policies and the processes governing union representation.
Source: Natlawreview.com