ARTICLE
3 February 2022

Employers Facing 8(a)(1) Charges During Organizing Can Expect More Federal Injunction Proceedings

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo broadened the type of cases in which the NLRB will seek federal injunction proceedings through her General Counsel Memorandum 22-02 (Feb. 1, 2022)...
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo broadened the type of cases in which the NLRB will seek federal injunction proceedings through her General Counsel Memorandum 22-02 (Feb. 1, 2022), which issued earlier today. Section 10(j) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), enables the General Counsel to seek injunctive relief in federal district court when the General Counsel can show normal NLRB processes will take too long to effectively remedy the unfair labor practice. To receive such an injunction, the General Counsel must show that it is likely an unfair labor practice has occurred and that any NLRB remedial order will be null. The NLRB has historically sought 10(j) relief in organizing cases only in those matters involving "serious, if not massive, unfair labor practices," typically including improper grants of benefits and/or unlawful discharges. See NLRB Section 10(j) Manual at 2.1.1.

In her memo, Abruzzo instructed Regional Offices to begin seeking injunctive relief in broader circumstances. "Regions should promptly investigate alleged Section 8(a)(1) threats or coercion made during an organizing drive and immediately submit those cases for consideration of injunctive relief even in the absence of discharges or other Section 8(a)(3) violations or during the pendency of discharge or other Section 8(a)(3) investigations." Abruzzo reasons that such action is necessary to avoid "threats often escalat[ing] into action," assuming that allegations of such threats "often" translate to unlawful discharges, job elimination, etc.

The memo further directs Regions and the NLRB's Injunction Litigation Branch to "consider all contextual circumstances to determine whether it may be appropriate to recommend pursuit of an injunction in cases involving threats or other coercion, such as inherent impact on employees and union support; nature, frequency, severity and dissemination; hierarchal rank of the actor(s); local labor market; and recidivism, to name a few."

Abruzzo's directive will sweep in Section 8(a)(1) charges involving much lower level allegations. Many such charges involve statutory supervisors' alleged statements that require credibility determinations from a fact finder-an NLRB Administrative Law Judge. Yet, it appears that Abruzzo is poised to seek injunctive relief in such cases well before any fact-finder renders a decision. If injunctive relief is granted, employers may be barred from making necessary, legitimate, and otherwise lawful business decisions. Moreover, employers will have to contend with negative press coverage and legal expenses associated with injunction litigation. Employers with organizing activity should prepare accordingly, including by training supervisors on the nuances of an organizing campaign.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
3 February 2022

Employers Facing 8(a)(1) Charges During Organizing Can Expect More Federal Injunction Proceedings

United States Employment and HR

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More