This week, in an expected decision, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) reinstated its prior “clear and unmistakable” waiver standard—a standard that has been much criticized by the courts—for determining when an employer’s unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”), asserting that the Board’s recent adoption of the “contract coverage” standard was made in “error.”

As we recently reported, the future of the Democratic majority at the NLRB remains in considerable doubt as we head towards President-elect Trump’s inauguration. NLRB Chairman Lauren McFerran’s term is set to expire in 3 days on December 16, 2024. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) motion for cloture to proceed to a nomination vote on McFerran’s reappointment failed on December 11. Given this uncertainty, this is one of what we expect to be many decisions issued by the NLRB in the coming days that continue its lengthy stretch of overturning existing Board precedent.

Background

In Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024), the Board reconsidered the standard to apply in Section 8(a)(5) unilateral change unfair labor practice cases when an employer asserts the union contractually surrendered employees’ statutory right to collectively bargain over mandatory subjects.

Historically, the Board applied the “clear and unmistakable” waiver test to such contractual defenses, requiring “bargaining partners to unequivocally and specifically express their mutual intention to permit unilateral employer action with respect to a particular employment term, notwithstanding the statutory duty to bargain that would otherwise apply.” Under this exacting standard, the employer and the union must have explicitly bargained over the employer’s right to take unilateral action with respect to a term or condition of employment, and the collective bargaining agreement must have expressly memorialized their agreement as to this right, in order to defend against an unfair labor practice charge. This standard made any contractual language granting employer discretion moot if the language did not contain waivers—which rarely appear in any agreement.

In 2019, the Republican-majority Board under the Trump administration overturned this 70-year-old doctrine in MV Transportation and adopted the “contract coverage” test long used by the D.C. Circuit Court, as well as other courts. As we previously discussed, the contract coverage standard “applies ordinary principles of contract interpretation to determine whether a disputed change was within the ‘compass or scope’ of any contractual provision authorizing unilateral action by the employer.” Under this more lenient standard for employers, the Board did not require “that the agreement specifically mention, refer to or address the employer decision at issue.” As such, the contract coverage test lowered the previously high bar for employers to establish a contractual defense to a unilateral action unfair labor practice charge.

Reinstatement of “Clear and Unmistakable” Waiver Standard

As anticipated, the Democratic-majority Board has again reversed the Board’s position on this standard, stating that the MV Transportation decision overturned longstanding Board law “without a sound overriding reason” and was, therefore, made in “error.”

In its holding, the Board briefly reviewed and dismissed the rationale provided in the MV Transportation Board’s opinion, stating that “none of the MV Transportation Board’s reasons for abandoning the waiver standard withstands scrutiny.” Instead, according to the Board, the clear and unmistakable waiver standard “better accomplishes the Board’s statutory mandate to promote industrial peace by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.”

The Board also explained that the reinstated-waiver standard brings Board law in alignment with Supreme Court jurisprudence and Board precedent with respect to the scrutiny applied to alleged contractual waivers of statutory rights, including “the fundamental right of employees to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, which lies at the heart of the Act.” 

Finding that MV Transportation was made in error, the Board determined that retroactive application of the reinstated clear and unmistakable waiver standard was appropriate in the case before it. However, the Board refrained from deciding whether to apply the new standard retroactively in all pending cases.

Takeaway   

While the near-term composition of the Board remains in limbo, we expect to see additional precedent-shifting decisions and roll-backs of decisions made by the Board under the Trump administration. The prospect of the institution of new labor policy under the future Trump Board also serves as an incentive for the Biden Board to issue as many key decisions in its remaining days as possible.  However, while employers need to be aware of this important change in the Board standard prospectively when such issues arise, if the Board shifts to a Republican majority in the near future, the clear and unmistakable waiver standard may not last as long as it did previously. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in particular has long criticized the standard.

As always, we will continue to monitor the situation and keep you updated with the latest.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Mark Theodore Mark Theodore

Mark Theodore is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. He has devoted his practice almost exclusively to representing management in all aspects of traditional labor law matters throughout the U.S. He is Co-Chair of Proskauer’s Labor-Management and Collective Bargaining Practice…

Mark Theodore is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. He has devoted his practice almost exclusively to representing management in all aspects of traditional labor law matters throughout the U.S. He is Co-Chair of Proskauer’s Labor-Management and Collective Bargaining Practice Group.

Some recent highlights of his career include:

  • Successfully defended client against allegations that it had terminated a union supporter and isolated another. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 15 (2017).
  • Successfully appealed NLRB findings that certain of client’s written policies violated the National Labor Relations Actions Act.  T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016), enf’d in part, rev’d in part 865 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2017).
  • Represented major utility in NLRB proceedings related to organizing of planners.  Secured utility-wide bargaining unit. Bargained on behalf of grocery chain.  After negotiations reached an impasse, guided the company through lawful implementation of five year collective bargaining agreement.
  • Coordinated employer response in numerous strike situations including a work stoppage across 14 western states of the client’s operations.

Mark has extensive experience representing employers in all matters before the NLRB, including representation petitions, jurisdictional disputes and the handling of unfair labor practice charges from the date they are filed through trial and appeal. Mark has acted as lead negotiator for dozens of major companies in a variety of industries, including national, multi-unit, multi-location, multi-employer and multi-union bargaining. Mark has handled lockout and strike situations, coordinating the clients efforts.

In addition, Mark has handled hundreds of arbitrations involving virtually every area of dispute, including contract interest arbitration, contract interpretation, just cause termination/discipline, benefits, pay rates, and hours of work.

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.

Photo of Elizabeth Dailey Elizabeth Dailey

Elizabeth Ann Dailey is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. Elizabeth assists clients in a variety of labor and employment matters, including motion practice, administrative proceedings, internal investigations, labor-management relations, and claims of employment discrimination. As part of her labor-management…

Elizabeth Ann Dailey is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. Elizabeth assists clients in a variety of labor and employment matters, including motion practice, administrative proceedings, internal investigations, labor-management relations, and claims of employment discrimination. As part of her labor-management relations practice, Elizabeth has assisted in representation proceedings before the NLRB and has experience responding to unfair labor practice charges, conducting labor-related business risk assessments, and assisting with collective bargaining negotiations.

Elizabeth frequently represents clients across a variety of industries and sectors, including educational institutions, sports entities, news and media organizations, entertainment companies, healthcare institutions, and real estate companies.

Elizabeth earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she completed a certificate program in business management from The Wharton School. While attending Penn Law, Elizabeth interned with the National Labor Relations Board Region 2 where she conducted investigations into unfair labor practices and recommended case dispositions to the Regional Director.