The Labor Law Insider: How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part I
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part II
The Burr Broadcast: Captive Audience Meetings
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part I
#WorkforceWednesday®: What a Trump Win Means for Unions - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How to Navigate Employee Stress After Election Day - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: NLRB’s Expanding Power - Pushback and Legal Challenges Ahead - Employment Law This Week®
Legal Alert | NLRB ALJ Finds Post Employment Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Provisions Unlawful
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: What Just Happened, and What's Next? 2023 Labor Law Retrospective, Part II
The Burr Broadcast: NLRB's Stericycle Decision and Its Implications for Employer Handbooks
Labor Law Insider - Forget the Election: Union Representation Without the Messy Election is the Next Labor Law Reality, Part I
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
The Labor Law Insider - Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today, Part II
Labor Law Insider – Decertification of Union Bargaining Unit: What’s Happening Today
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Charges Surge, NYC Prohibits Size Discrimination, FL Expands E-Verify Requirements - Employment Law This Week®
On Friday, December 27, 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed Starbucks a victory by vacating an order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) on the grounds that the Board exceeded its authority...more
On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Amazon.com Services committed an unfair labor practice by requiring employees to attend a work time meeting to hear Amazon’s views on union representation....more
Going against decades of precedent, the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), in Amazon.com, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024), held that employers violate federal labor law when they require employee attendance at meetings...more
On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, holding that "captive-audience meetings" are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision...more
During union representation campaigns, it is common for employers to advise employees of the downsides posed by union recognition. The current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has criticized these tactics, alleging that...more
The National Labor Relations Board once again has reversed precedent. It will now use a case-by-case analysis to determine whether an employer’s statements about the negative impacts of unionization on the relationship...more
This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and...more
On November 8, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) handed down its decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB 135, turning 40-year-old precedent regarding what employers can and cannot...more
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has been using a caffeinated approach to challenge employers in unfair labor practice disputes, with Section 10(j) injunction petitions at the top of the menu, often...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Starbucks v. McKinney,1 which clarifies the legal standard governing temporary injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) against employers alleged...more
In a win for employers facing unfair labor practice charges, the Supreme Court’s holding in Starbucks v. McKinney makes it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to obtain Section 10(j) injunctions....more
A National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge recently found that a company violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating a “union salt”— an organizer unions place at a workplace to unionize its...more
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with Starbucks Corp. over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a decision that would severely delay the process for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions...more
In an eight-to-one decision this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, involving a longstanding legal battle against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB was...more
On June 13 the U.S. Supreme Court heightened the standard a court must apply to an NLRB request for a preliminary injunction against an employer accused of violating federal labor law....more
Four months ago, we told you about a brewing labor law issue – whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) must satisfy the traditional preliminary injunction standard to secure an injunction against an...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently unanimously ruled against the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. The decision reversed the NLRB’s attempt to change the standard for...more
The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, ruled that federal district courts must apply a traditional four-factor test when evaluating requests for injunctive relief brought by the National...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a...more
In an 8-1 decision involving Starbucks, the Supreme Court last week held that district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions to injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board...more
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States made it harder for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to win injunctive relief against employers accused of unfair labor practices. The Court held in Starbucks...more
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, decided on June 13, 2024, arose out of the discharge of several Starbucks employees who formed a union organizing committee...more
On June 13, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. In Starbucks, the Supreme Court clarified that the traditional four-factor test courts apply to requests for...more
On June 13, 2024, the United States Supreme Court held in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367, that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must satisfy the Winter test to secure a preliminary injunction. The Winter...more