Photo of 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 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.”

In a continuation of the current National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) reversal of recent precedent established by the NLRB under the prior administration, on August 29, 2022, the Board held that Tesla, Inc.’s (“Tesla”) dress code violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because employees were prevented from

As we previously reported, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is committed to expanding the remedies utilized by the Board to make employees harmed by an employer’s unfair labor practice whole. As part of this commitment, GC Abruzzo has encouraged Regional Offices to consider

On February 4, 2022, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects (the “Order”), which requires the federal government to require a project labor agreement (“PLA”) before awarding any “large-scale construction contract,” defined as a contract for which the estimated cost is

The Third Circuit issued a noteworthy split 2-1 decision last month, finding that a company’s claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against several Unions failed, where the Unions’ tactics as part of a corporate campaign and its “extortion through fear of economic loss” directed at

The NLRB’s “contract coverage” standard for determining whether a collective bargaining agreement privileges an employer to unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment received support last week from a federal court of appeals, further solidifying the legitimacy of the relatively new standard at a time when the Board is undergoing

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a decision by the NLRB dismissing a complaint against two joint employers alleging unlawful termination in retaliation for picketing activity. The Court, reversing the Board, found that the employees’ picket was not unlawful secondary activity and therefore