For the third time in eight years, both the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) prosecutorial and adjudicative arms face a pending partisan overhaul after President-elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025.

While we anticipate that President-elect Trump will immediately terminate the current General Counsel (and Deputy General Counsel)—just as President Biden did on his first day in office (previously covered here and here)—exactly when the majority of the Board will flip from Democrat to Republican is far less certain.

We discuss below the range of potential outcomes and the impact on employers within the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

Expected Changes To The NLRB’s Prosecutorial Agenda

1. President-Elect Trump Likely Will Fire GC Abruzzo Shortly After Inauguration.

Shortly after his January 20, 2025 inauguration, we expect President-elect Trump to fire current NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (“GC Abruzzo”), replace GC Abruzzo with an Acting General Counsel (presumably with a pro-employer track record within the agency), and then nominate a pro-employer successor NLRB General Counsel (“Successor NLRB GC”), who is unlikely to face substantial opposition to confirmation from a 53-47 Republican-controlled Senate. Once confirmed, the Successor NLRB GC will play a significant role in directing the Regions in their investigation of unfair labor practice charges, deciding the cases on which to issue complaints, and seeking Section 10(j) injunctive relief.

2. The Acting NLRB GC Likely Will Rescind GC Abruzzo’s Pro-Employee Guidance Memoranda Before A Successor NLRB GC Is Confirmed.

Well before a Successor NLRB GC is confirmed, however, whomever President-elect Trump designates as Acting NLRB GC will have the opportunity, as predecessors have done, to rescind some or all of GC Abruzzo’s memoranda that established pro-employee enforcement priorities.

It is important to note, however, that President-elect Trump garnered some support from certain labor-union leaders during his campaign and made significant inroads with unionized employees at the ballot box—despite organized labor historically comprising a stronghold for the Democratic Party. So whether the Trump administration will seek to fully reverse GC Abruzzo’s agenda remains an open question, particularly in light of President-elect Trump recently announcing Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) as his Secretary of Labor nominee. While Rep. Chavez-DeRemer would lead the Department of Labor—not the NLRB—as Secretary of Labor, many consider her nomination to be surprising because of her unusually pro-union record (at least for a Republican). Indeed, among other things, Chavez-DeRemer—whose father was a member of the Teamsters, a union which reportedly supported her nomination—was one of only three Republicans in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2023 (“PRO Act”), a strongly pro-union bill that Democrats have repeatedly sought (and failed) that would drastically overhaul the NLRA in various respects, such as by prohibiting employers from permanently replacing strikers. (We covered previous efforts to pass the PRO Act here, here, here, here, and here.)

In any event, the following pro-employee initiatives advanced by GC Abruzzo during her tenure are vulnerable for rescission by the Acting (or Successor) NLRB GC:

  • Expanded Remedies in Unfair Labor Practices: Memoranda GC-21-06 and 24-04, previously covered here and here, which advised all NLRB Regional Offices to urge the Board to exercise its broad discretion in fashioning more fulsome relief for workers impacted by unfair labor practices, including make-whole remedies to cover the cost of economic losses (such as such as healthcare expenses incurred as a result of an unlawful termination of health insurance).
  • “Employee” Status: Over the years, whether certain groups are considered “employees” under the NLRA has served as a partisan football as well—most recently vis-à-vis college athletes. Richard Griffin—the NLRB GC during President Obama’s second term—issued a memorandum at the end of his term in January 2017 declaring Division I Football Bowl Subdivision scholarship football players (among other university faculty and students) to be statutory “employees,” which was then rescinded by his successor, Peter Robb. Then, Robb’s successor, GC Abruzzo, issued Memorandum GC 21-08 in 2021, previously covered here, taking the legal position that college athletes are employees under the NLRA. (As discussed here, here, and here, the employment status of college athletes remains an open question under two ongoing cases before the NLRB involving the University of Southern California and Dartmouth, respectively.) Similarly, the NLRB’s position as to the employment status of graduate students has vacillated, depending on the Board’s political composition; most recently, in 2016, the NLRB held that that certain graduate students performing teaching or research services under university control in exchange for compensation were employees. See Columbia Univ., 364 NLRB 1080 (2016) (overruling Brown Univ., 342 NLRB 483 (2004), where the Board held that graduate-student teaching and research assistants were not employees). Whether the Successor NLRB GC under the second Trump administration will seek to change the status quo vis-à-vis the employee status of college athletes, graduate students, and/or other groups falling along the margins (e.g., unpaid interns, volunteers, etc.) remains an open question, particularly given that President-elect Trump has not publicly staked out a position on this issue.
  • Employee Monitoring: Memorandum GC 23-02, previously covered here, in which GC Abruzzo advocated for zealous enforcement and Board adoption of a “new framework” to protect employees from intrusive or abusive forms of electronic monitoring and automated management that interfere with protected Section 7 activity.
  • Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses: Memoranda GC 23-05, previously covered here, which advised Regional Directors to advance enforcement of McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) (previously covered here), where the Board found that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements violate Section 8(a)(1).
  • Non-Compete Agreements and “Stay-or Play” Provisions: Memoranda GC 23-08 and GC 25-01, previously covered here and here, which contend that non-compete agreements, “stay-or-pay” provisions and employee non-solicit agreements are unlawful under the NLRA.
  • Section 10(j) Injunctive Relief: Memorandum GC 24-05, previously covered here, which implored all Regional Offices to continue “aggressively seek[ing] Section 10(j) injunctions,” despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (previously covered here) that upheld a more heightened burden for the Board to obtain injunctive relief in federal district court.

3. The Successor NLRB GC Likely Will Preview The Precedent-Altering Cases That Will Reach The Board.

We expect the successor NLRB GC, once confirmed, to issue memoranda detailing legal issues on which Regional Directors are required to submit to the NLRB’s Division of Advice for consultation, which preview enforcement and policy priorities by identifying the Board precedent the new GC wishes to challenge. (We expect such memoranda to be swiftly issued, as both Robb and Abruzzo did so within a month of taking office, as previously covered here and here.)

We anticipate that many of the legal issues for which the successor GC may mandate submission to the Division of Advice may involve some of the groundbreaking pro-employee precedent established under the current Board, including:

  • Voluntary Recognition and Election Conduct: Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (Aug. 25, 2023), previously covered here, where the Board held that an employer violates the Act when it refuses to recognize, upon request, a union that has been designated as Section 9(a) representative by the majority of employees in an appropriate unit unless the employer promptly files an RM petition with the Board to test the union’s majority status or the appropriateness of the unit, assuming that the union has not already filed a RC petition. And after a petition is filed, if an employer subsequently “commits an unfair labor practice that requires setting aside the election, the petition will be dismissed, and the employer will be subject to a remedial bargaining order.” The Cemex decision is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument on October 21, 2024 (discussed here).
  • Make-Whole Remedies: Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (Dec. 15, 2022), previously covered here, where the Board expanded its standard make-whole remedy for employees to include compensation for “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harm.”
  • Broad Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses in Severance Agreements: McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (Feb. 21, 2023), previously addressed here, where the Board overruled prior precedent, finding that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements violate Section 8(a)(1).
  • Lawfulness of Handbook Policies and Workplace Rules: Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), previously covered on our blog here and our podcast here, where the Board overruled existing precedent and adopted a stricter test regarding the lawfulness of facially neutral handbook policies and workplace rules.
  • Protected Activity: Lion Elastomers, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) (May 1, 2023), previously covered here, where the Board overturned recent precedent issued under the Trump administration, making it riskier and more complicated for employers to discipline employees for abusive workplace conduct alleged to have arisen within the context of protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.
  • Unilateral Changes: Wendt Corp., 372 NLRB 135 (Aug. 26, 2023) and Tecnocap LLC, 372 NLRB 136 (Aug. 26, 2023), previously discussed here, where the Board overturned Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017) (previously discussed here), holding that an employer can only implement unilateral changes during a hiatus period between contracts or prior to the execution of a first contract when the action is both (i) consistent with longstanding past practice, and (ii) non-discretionary. (Under Raytheon, discretionary changes were permitted.)
  • Protected Activity on behalf of Non-Employees: American Federation for Children, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 137 (Aug. 26, 2023), previously covered here, where the Board held that concerted activity by statutory employees on behalf of nonemployees can even be protected by the Act if it can benefit the statutory employees—overturning decades of precedent to the contrary.
  • Employer Statements during Campaign: Siren Retail Corp d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135 (Nov. 8, 2024), previously covered here, where the Board overruled nearly 40 years of NLRB precedent by holding that employers may violate the NLRA by making statements to workers regarding the impact that unionization would have on the relationship between employees and management.
  • Captive-Audience Meetings: Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 13, 2024), previously covered here, where the Board overturned overruled 75 years of precedent under the seminal Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1948) by holding that, going forward, employers violate the NLRA by holding captive-audience meetings, i.e., employer-mandated meetings “at which the employer expresses its views on unionization.”

The list above is by no means exhaustive, and the Successor NLRB GC may identify other areas of the law that could be bent more towards management that are ripe for expansion or reversal of existing pro-employee precedent.

We also note that the battle over the joint-employer rule over the last several years (most recently covered here) seems all but over for now after the Biden administration withdrew its appeal of the district court ruling this summer enjoining enforcement of its more relaxed proposed joint-employer rule.

4. Impact Of Acting/Successor NLRB GC On Existing Litigations.

The Acting/Successor NLRB GC will also have influence over existing litigations. More specifically, where the NLRB (or a Region) is the party seeking relief or review, the Acting/Successor NLRB GC will generally have the authority to withdraw the complaint/appeal (or direct the Regional Director to do so), which would preserve the status quo.

A more complicated—and unusual—scenario would ensue, however, if the Acting/Successor NLRB GC sought to change its position in a case where the opposing party (e.g., a petitioning employer or union) was seeking exception to an ALJ decision before the Board or appellate review of Board decision that was decided in the NLRB GC’s favor. This may arise more frequently at the circuit-court level, including in the cases appealing the NLRB’s recent pro-employee decisions and the existing SpaceX and Amazon cases before the Fifth Circuit challenging the constitutionality of the Board (we previously covered SpaceX here and here). While we are unaware of any precedent considering such a fact pattern, we note that the interested party whose rights the NLRB GC had been representing may be able to step in as intervenor to defend its position.

Changes To The Makeup of the 5-Member NLRB

In addition to the changes to the Board’s prosecutorial arm, we also expect the Board’s five-member quasi-judicial body—which currently comprises only four members, three Democrats and one Republican—to transition to a Republican majority during President Trump’s term. The majority-status of the NLRB plays a key role in fashioning federal labor law, as the NLRB decides cases, overturns precedent, and issues rules (such as the “quickie” election rules that were implemented on December 26, 2023 and discussed here). The timing of when the NLRB majority will flip to a Republican majority is far from certain.

1. Will The Lame-Duck Senate Confirm The Pending Nominees?

In June 2024, President Biden nominated NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran (Democrat) for a third term and Joshua Ditelberg (Republican) to fill the vacant fifth seat.

Both nominations cleared Committee and would be subject to a floor vote before the lame duck session of the Senate. On November 23, 2024, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on social media that “[c]onfirming the NLRB nominees is one of our highest priorities, and we’re going to do everything we can do to get it done by the end of the year.” 

If they are confirmed, as expected, then the NLRB likely would retain its Democratic majority until the term of current NLRB member David Prouty expires on August 27, 2026, after which President-elect Trump likely would appoint a Republican replacement to be confirmed by the Senate—more than a year and a half into his four-year term. During this time, we would expect the NLRB GC to refrain from bringing potentially precedent-altering decisions to the NLRB’s docket—in both directions.

2. If The Democrats Retain A NLRB Majority Until August 2026, Will President-Elect Trump Exercise His Removal Authority For NLRB Members?

In the event Ms. McFerran and Mr. Dietelberg are confirmed—depriving President-elect Trump of a Republican-majority Board until August 2026—there is speculation that, after he assumes office, President Trump will attempt to discharge the Democratic members of the Board, which would set up a fascinating constitutional fight. Section 3(a) of the NLRA states that “[a]ny member of the Board may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” which is why presidents have traditionally permitted NLRB members to complete their terms as a matter of course. President-elect Trump could attempt to strain the definition of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” or he could argue this requirement is unconstitutional under Article II, which requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” meaning the president cannot be prohibited from hiring and firing certain administrative officials, such as Board members, at will. Indeed, as alluded to above, similar arguments have been lodged (and recently argued before the Fifth Circuit)—both by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and by Amazon—as to the alleged unconstitutional nature of NLRB Administrative Law Judges, as previously covered here, here, and here.

3. If The Lame-Duck Senate Does Not Confirm Chair McFerran, Then The Republican Majority Likely Will Flip In 2025.

If the current Senate does not confirm Chair McFerran’s third term (which would also mean that they would not confirm Mr. Ditelberg’s nomination, who was proposed simultaneously with McFerrran) by January 3, 2025, then the NLRB could have a Republican majority shortly after President-elect Trump’s inauguration, depending on how quickly he nominates (and the Senate confirms) two replacement Republican nominees to create a Republican majority until Member Marvin Kaplan’s term expires on August 27, 2025.

Regardless of the Senate’s actions, as evident by the recent decisions overturning precedent involving employer statements during organizing campaigns and captive-audience meetings, we expect the current NLRB will continue to issue decisions in an expeditious manner before the end of 2024 that continue to overturn existing precedent in favor of unions and employees.

* * *

We will continue to monitor future developments, and, as always, will cover noteworthy updates on our blog, Labor Relations Update.

Posted in NLRB
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Paul Salvatore Paul Salvatore

Paul Salvatore provides strategic labor and employment law advice to companies, boards of directors/trustees, senior executives and general counsel in such areas as labor-management relations, litigation, alternative dispute resolution, international labor and employment issues, and corporate transactions.

He negotiates major collective bargaining agreements…

Paul Salvatore provides strategic labor and employment law advice to companies, boards of directors/trustees, senior executives and general counsel in such areas as labor-management relations, litigation, alternative dispute resolution, international labor and employment issues, and corporate transactions.

He negotiates major collective bargaining agreements in several industries, including real estate and construction. Paul represents the NYC real estate industry’s multi-employer organization, the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations (RAB), and its principal trade organization, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY). In 2023, he helped the RAB reach a new collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 32BJ, covering 20,000 commercial building employees, enabling the industry to adapt its labor practices to tenants’ post-COVID utilization of office space, including that caused by remote/hybrid work.

Paul has long represented construction employers and developers, such as the Related Companies, Cement League, Association of Master Painters and others. He negotiates Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s), such as for Related (enabling the construction of Hudson Yards), and presently for Gateway Development Corporation (GDC) in building the New York-New Jersey train tunnels, the largest infrastructure project in America. City & State magazine has named him one of the most powerful lawyers in New York for his work in this sector.

Paul also tries arbitrations and litigations, and argues appeals, arising from labor-management relationships. He argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett. In a 5-4 decision of importance to employers, the Court held that a collective bargaining agreement explicitly requiring unionized employees to arbitrate employment discrimination claims is enforceable, modifying 35 years of labor law. Unions and employers now negotiate “Pyett clauses” in collective bargaining. He has argued and won federal circuit court cases reversing the National Labor Relations Board’s findings against employers, including in the D.C. and Fifth Circuits.

Paul represents universities and colleges in their labor and employment relations, including in the currently active areas of unionization and collective bargaining with graduate students, undergraduates, athletes and adjunct faculty. Among other schools he has worked with are Yale, Duke, Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis and Caltech. Paul pioneered innovative non-NLRB graduate student union election agreements at Cornell, Brown and Syracuse Universities.

An honors graduate of Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) and the Cornell Law School, Paul served eight years on Cornell’s Board of Trustees, including on its Executive Committee. He subsequently was elected Trustee Emeritus and Presidential Councilor. He presently serves as a Trustee Member of the Board of Fellows of Weill Cornell Medicine, as well as on the Law School and ILR Deans’ Advisory Councils. In 2002, ILR awarded him the Judge William B. Groat prize, the school’s highest honor.

At Proskauer, Paul was elected to its Executive Committee and served as co-chair of its global Labor & Employment Law Department, named during his tenure by The American Lawyer and Chambers USA as one of the premier U.S. practices. He is widely recognized as a leading U.S. labor and employment lawyer in such publications as Chambers Global and USA (Band 1), and Legal 500 (“Hall of Fame”). The National Law Journal selected Paul as one of “The Decade’s Most Influential Lawyers” – one of only three in the labor and employment law field. His peers elected him to the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers.

An active speaker and writer on labor and employment law issues, Paul’s recent publications include “One Dozen Years of Pyett: A Win for Unionized Workplace Dispute Resolution” in the American Bar Association Labor & Employment Law Journal (“ABA Journal”), Volume 36, Number 2 at 257, and “The PLA Alternative in an Increasingly Open Shop New York City Construction Market: The REBNY-BCTC Statement of Principles,” Volume 37 ABA Journal, Number 3 at 415. He is an Adjunct Professor at Cornell Law School, teaching “Current Issues in Collective Bargaining.”

Read more about Paul Salvatore
Show more Show less
Photo of Howard Z. Robbins Howard Z. Robbins

Howard Z. Robbins is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, and a co-head of the Strategic Corporate Planning Group.

In the traditional labor law arena, Howard represents clients in a broad range of industries, including sports and entertainment, retail and…

Howard Z. Robbins is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, and a co-head of the Strategic Corporate Planning Group.

In the traditional labor law arena, Howard represents clients in a broad range of industries, including sports and entertainment, retail and fashion, newspapers, pharmaceutical companies, hotels, educational and not-for-profit institutions (such as the Metropolitan Opera, Museum of Modern Art and other major museums and cultural institutions). As a member of the firm’s Sports Law Group, Howard has been counsel to the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association, National Football League and Major League Soccer, and has represented numerous individual NHL clubs. He regularly negotiates collective bargaining agreements and has represented employers in various industries in representation hearings and unfair labor practice trials before the National Labor Relations Board, and in scores of discharge and contract arbitrations. Howard also provides daily advice and counsel to clients in applying collective bargaining agreements and in complying with applicable labor laws. A recent article in The New Yorker magazine noted Howard’s reputation in labor negotiations, stating that “Robbins’s name is synonymous with tough management.”

As co-head of the Strategic Corporate Planning Group, Howard is often called upon to provide labor and employment advice in corporate transactions. He works with clients and investment bankers and negotiates with union representatives to facilitate these deals.

Howard’s practice also includes a significant employment law component. In his practice, Howard represents clients in state and federal district and appellate courts and administrative agencies with respect to discrimination and employment disputes. Aside from litigation, Howard has an active counseling practice, providing practical advice to clients on issues like hiring, terminations, restructuring, wage-and-hour laws, WARN compliance, leave issues and other EEO compliance matters.

Most recently recognized by Acritas as a Stand-out Star, Howard is described as “a wonderful negotiator, (and is) in total command of employment law, and combines that with a real practical sense of how things are working.”

As a member of the International Labor & Employment Group, Howard often assists clients with cross-border labor and employment issues and coordinates with local counsel around the world.

Read more about Howard Z. Robbins
Show more Show less
Photo of Michael Lebowich Michael Lebowich

Michael J. Lebowich is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Labor-Management Relations Group. He represents and counsels employers on a wide range of labor and employment matters, with a particular interest in the field of traditional…

Michael J. Lebowich is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Labor-Management Relations Group. He represents and counsels employers on a wide range of labor and employment matters, with a particular interest in the field of traditional labor law.

Michael acts as the primary spokesperson in collective bargaining negotiations, regularly handles grievance arbitrations, assists clients in the labor implications of corporate transactions, and counsels clients on union organizing issues, strike preparation and day-to-day contract administration issues. He also has significant experience in representation and unfair labor practice matters before the National Labor Relations Board.

His broad employment law experience includes handling of race, national origin, gender and other discrimination matters in state and federal court. A significant amount of his practice is devoted to counseling clients regarding the application and practical impact of the full range of employment laws that affect our clients, including all local, state and federal employment discrimination statutes, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and state labor laws.

Michael has substantial experience in a wide variety of industries, including entertainment, broadcasting, newspaper publishing and delivery, utilities and lodging. He represents such clients as The New York Times, BuzzFeed, ABC, the New York City Ballet, PPL, Pacific Gas & Electric, Host Hotels and Resorts, and The Broadway League (and many of its theater owner and producing members).  Michael also has significant public sector experience representing, among others, the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Michael is a frequent guest lecturer at Columbia Business School, the Cornell School of Hotel Administration, the New York University Tisch School for Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management, and is an advisory board member of the Cornell Institute for Hospitality Labor and Employment Relations.

Read more about Michael Lebowich
Show more Show less
Photo of Adam Lupion Adam Lupion

Adam Lupion is a partner in the Firm’s Labor & Employment department and a member of the Labor Management Relations, Sports Law and Employment Litigation Groups. Widely recognized as a leading labor and employment attorney, Adam has been named a “Power Player” by …

Adam Lupion is a partner in the Firm’s Labor & Employment department and a member of the Labor Management Relations, Sports Law and Employment Litigation Groups. Widely recognized as a leading labor and employment attorney, Adam has been named a “Power Player” by Sports Business Journal, a “Top 50 L&E Litigator” and “Labor & Employment Star” by Benchmark Litigation, as well as numerous other accolades.

A trusted litigator and counselor, Adam has developed a particular expertise representing sports leagues and teams. He has been at the center of many of the most significant labor and employment matters in the sports industry.

For example, Adam helped guide Major League Baseball (MLB) through its most recent work stoppage with players, represented MLB in grievance arbitrations challenging player discipline for violations of the league’s domestic violence and drug policies, successfully defended MLB against discrimination claims brought by Angel Hernandez, and defended MLB and its member Clubs in class and collective actions involving pay practices of minor league players and claims of age discrimination by scouts. In addition, Adam has handled several litigations and arbitrations for the National Hockey League and National Football League, and has advised college athletic conferences and universities across the broad spectrum of labor and employment laws.

Adam also leads the Firm’s MLB Salary Arbitration practice, and is one of the most sought-after practitioners to represent Clubs during contract negotiations and at arbitration hearings against some of the game’s most prominent players.

Adam’s practice extends far beyond the world of sports, as he has extensive experience representing healthcare, higher education, financial services, media and entertainment, telecommunications, energy, retail and hospitality clients in a wide variety of labor and employment law matters in state and federal court, and before administrative agencies.

He has lectured on labor and employment law at Cornell University, New York University School of Law, and Cardozo Law School. He frequently represents the Firm and the Sports Law Group on panel discussions and at career seminars for current and prospective lawyers.

Read more about Adam Lupion
Show more Show less
Photo of Steven Porzio Steven Porzio

Steven J. Porzio is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relations Group. Steve assists both unionized and union-free clients with a full range of labor and employee relations matters. He represents employers in contract…

Steven J. Porzio is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relations Group. Steve assists both unionized and union-free clients with a full range of labor and employee relations matters. He represents employers in contract negotiations, arbitrations, and representation and unfair labor practice cases before the National Labor Relations Board.

Steve has experience conducting vulnerability assessments and providing management training in union and litigation avoidance, leave management, wage and hour, and hiring and firing practices. He provides strategic and legal advice in certification and decertification elections, union organizing drives, corporate campaigns, picketing and union contract campaigns. Steve has represented employers in a number of different industries, including higher education, health care, construction and manufacturing in successful efforts against unions in election and corporate campaigns.

In addition to his traditional labor law work, Steve assists companies with handbook and personnel policy drafting and review, daily management of employee disciplines and terminations, and general advice and counsel on compliance with federal and state employment laws.

Steve’s litigation experience includes work on matters before state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the New York State Division of Human Rights and various other administrative agencies. He has litigated matters involving age, race, national origin, gender and disability discrimination, wage and hour, whistleblower and wrongful termination claims.

While attending the Syracuse University College of Law, Steve served as the editor-in-chief of the Syracuse Science and Technology Law Reporter. He also received the Robert F. Koretz scholarship, awarded in recognition of excellence in the study of labor law.

Read more about Steven Porzio
Show more Show less
Photo of Joshua Fox Joshua Fox

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several…

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several Major League Baseball Clubs in all aspects of the salary arbitration process, including the Miami Marlins, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, Tampa Bay Rays and Toronto Blue Jays. In particular, Josh successfully represented the Miami Marlins in their case against All-Star Catcher J.T. Realmuto, which was a significant club victory in salary arbitration. Josh also represents Major League Baseball and its clubs in ongoing litigation brought by current and former minor league players who allege minimum wage and overtime violations. Josh participated on the team that successfully defended Major League Baseball in a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought by a former volunteer for the 2013 All-Star FanFest, who alleged minimum wage violations under federal and state law. The lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court, and was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Josh also has extensive experience representing professional sports leagues and teams in grievance arbitration proceedings, including playing a vital role in all aspects of the grievance challenging the suspension for use of performance-enhancing drugs of then-New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Josh also has counseled NHL Clubs and served on the trial teams for grievances alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cases involving use of performance-enhancing substances, domestic violence issues, and supplementary discipline for on-ice conduct. He has played a key role in representing professional sports leagues in all aspects of their collective bargaining negotiations with players and officials, including the Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, the National Football League, Major League Soccer, the Professional Referee Organization, and the National Basketball Association,.

In addition, Josh has extensive experience representing clients in the performing arts industry, including the New York City Ballet, New York City Opera, Big Apple Circus, among many others, in collective bargaining negotiations with performers and musicians, the administration of their collective bargaining agreements, and in grievance arbitrations.

Josh also represents a diverse range of clients, including real estate developers and contractors, pipe line contractors, hospitals, hotels, manufacturers and public employers, in collective bargaining, counseling on general employment matters and proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, New York State Public Employment Relations Board and arbitrators.

Josh has also recently served as an adjunct professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial Labor Relations for the past two years, teaching a course regarding Major League Baseball salary arbitration.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Josh worked for a year and a half at the National Hockey League, where he was involved in all labor and employment matters, including preparations for collective bargaining, grievance arbitration, contract drafting and reviewing and employment counseling. Josh also interned in the labor relations department of Major League Baseball and at Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board. He was a member of the Brooklyn Law Review and the Appellate Moot Court Honor Society and served as president of the Brooklyn Entertainment and Sports Law Society.

Read more about Joshua Fox
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Third Circuit Brews a Limit on NLRB’s Remedial Authority
January 2, 2025
Supreme Court Remands NLRB Successor Bar Case, Signaling Potential Changes to Board Deference Doctrine
December 20, 2024
Federal District Court in D.C. Strikes Down Removal Protections for ALJs
December 13, 2024