01/07/2025: General Counsel Outlines Casehandling Changes
Summaries of cases involving the Health Care Rule, single-facility presumption, and grad students.
New Processes for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Casehandling, GC 25-03, (GC Memo)
This January 6, 2025 memo from NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo outlines new procedures to handle a surge in labor cases amid resource constraints.
Key changes already implemented:
Requiring upfront evidence from charging parties
Using written questionnaires for common case types
Conducting video interviews when possible
Using interview notes instead of formal affidavits for corroborating witnesses
Early screening and dismissal of meritless cases
Earlier engagement with charged parties
Streamlined trial procedures including more verbal arguments and letter briefs
Upcoming changes focus on transparency and privacy:
Removing individual names from case captions (using "Charging Party, an Individual" instead)
Publishing hearing dates on public docket sites
Making more case documents publicly available online
Protecting personally identifiable information through redaction
These changes aim to improve efficiency, transparency, and accessibility while protecting privacy and reducing the burden of information requests on the agency.
Interstate Power Tools and Machining, Inc. d/b/a Interstate Rentals, JD-01-25, 25-CA-323892 (ALJ Decision)
On August 15, 2023, the Operating Engineers Union Local 150 filed an unfair labor practice charge against Interstate Power Tools and Machining (doing business as Interstate Rentals) in Valparaiso, Indiana. The charge alleged that Interstate violated federal labor law by issuing overly broad subpoenas.
The subpoenas were connected to an earlier case. In that case, Interstate had fired employee Tim Ammons, allegedly for making a phone call during work hours to a union official. The union filed charges over the termination, but the parties settled that case in March 2023.
Before the settlement, Interstate had issued subpoenas to Ammons, another employee named Rich Jania, and three union officials. The subpoenas sought extensive documentation including:
All communications about Interstate between employees, the union, and others since January 2022
Documents about union activities and protests
Cell phone records, text messages, and social media communications
Financial records including credit card statements
Information about union activities at other employers
Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez found these subpoenas violated federal labor law. She determined they were overly broad and would reveal protected union activities that employees had a right to keep confidential. The judge noted that while employers sometimes need information about union activities, these subpoenas went far beyond what was relevant or necessary.
The judge ordered Interstate to stop issuing such broad subpoenas and to post notices informing employees of their rights. She rejected Interstate's arguments that the subpoenas were justified to investigate potentially illegal union activities, finding Interstate had not shown any legitimate need for such extensive information.
Significant Cases Cited
National Telephone Directory Corp., 319 NLRB 420 (1995) - Held that employees' confidentiality interests in union activities outweigh employer's need to obtain identities for cross-examination
Multi-Ad Services, 331 NLRB 1226 (2000) - Established objective test for 8(a)(1) violations based on whether conduct would reasonably tend to interfere with Section 7 rights
Ampersand Publishing, LLC, 361 NLRB 903 (2012) - Found employers act with illegal objective when seeking confidential Board affidavits from employees
Starbucks Corporation, 373 NLRB No. 101 (2024) - Found violation where employer issued broad subpoenas seeking employee communications about union organizing
Mount Sinai Health System, JD(NY)-23-24, 02-CA-329471 (ALJ Decision)
In late 2022, Dr. Alexander Weller worked as a part-time hospitalist at Mount Sinai Queens for about four shifts. When he started, he signed an employment agreement that included confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions. These provisions restricted employees from discussing wages and from recruiting other Mount Sinai employees after leaving.
The General Counsel of the NLRB filed a complaint alleging these provisions violated labor law. However, they named Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. as the Charged Party. This turned out to be problematic because Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. is actually just a holding company that doesn't employ anyone - all the doctors, including Dr. Weller, were actually employed by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
During the case, the judge repeatedly offered the General Counsel the opportunity to fix this by adding the Icahn School as a defendant or by explaining how Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. could be held responsible for the Icahn School's actions. The General Counsel declined to do this.
The judge found that while there might be legitimate concerns about the employment provisions, the case couldn't proceed because they had sued the wrong entity. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc.'s tax returns showed it had zero employees, and witness testimony confirmed that all physicians were employed by the Icahn School. Since the General Counsel hadn't properly included the actual employer (the Icahn School) in the case or explained how the holding company was legally responsible, the judge dismissed the complaint entirely.
Significant Cases Cited
Wyndham International, Inc., 330 NLRB 691 (2000) - Established that parent company liability requires showing "direct participation" in unlawful conduct
Massey Energy Co., 358 NLRB 1643 (2012) - Allowed single employer theory despite lack of specific pleading, but importantly had named both entities as respondents
Costa Mesa Cars, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 154 (2018) - Found parent company liable under direct participation theory but had properly named all entities in complaint
Brown University, 01-RC-338737 (Regional Election Decision)
In December 2024, NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks dismissed a petition seeking to add approximately 50 postdoctoral fellows to an existing bargaining unit at Brown University.
The case involved two groups of postdoctoral fellows: those with clinical placements in Brown's Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, and those receiving external funding. The existing bargaining unit already included about 300 postdoctoral research associates, postdoctoral fellows, research fellows, and dean's faculty fellows.
The Regional Director found that postdoctoral fellows with clinical placements were employees of affiliated hospitals - not Brown University. For example, Dr. Michaela Koveleskie worked at Butler Hospital under supervision of hospital staff, received paychecks from Care New England, and got benefits through Care New England. Similarly, Dr. Sarah Neville was employed by Rhode Island Hospital/Lifespan.
For externally funded fellows like Dr. Humberto Gilmer, the Regional Director found they were not Brown employees because their funding came directly from external sources like the National Science Foundation. These fellows conducted independent research without Brown controlling their work or providing compensation.
The Graduate Labor Organization argued Brown was at least a joint employer, but the Regional Director found insufficient evidence that Brown controlled essential employment terms like wages, benefits, hiring, discipline, or supervision. While some fellows used Brown facilities and interacted with Brown students, this wasn't enough to establish an employment relationship.
Significant Cases Cited
Columbia University, 364 NLRB 1080 (2016) - Set forth common law test requiring employer control over work and compensation for employee status
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 01-RC-304042 (2024) - Held that fellows who perform research for their own academic purposes without employment responsibilities are not employees
Section 103.40 of NLRB Rules - Establishes joint employer standard requiring shared control over essential employment terms
Spectrum Health Hospitals, 07-RM-355790 (Regional Election Decision)
In late 2024, a labor dispute arose at Corewell Health's hospitals in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Teamsters union (Local 406, IBT) tried to organize the respiratory therapists working at two hospital locations - 100 Michigan Street NE and 1840 Wealthy Street SE. On November 15, they asked the employer to voluntarily recognize them as the bargaining representative for these workers.
Rather than grant recognition, Corewell Health filed an RM petition with the NLRB on November 27. They challenged whether a respiratory therapists-only bargaining unit would be legally appropriate. This led Region 7's Regional Director to issue an Order to Show Cause, asking both sides to explain why this proposed unit would or wouldn't comply with the NLRB's Health Care Rule.
The core issue was simple: the NLRB's rules for acute care hospitals only allow eight specific types of bargaining units. A unit of just respiratory therapists doesn't fit into any of these categories. While there are two possible exceptions to these rules - "extraordinary circumstances" or the presence of existing non-conforming units - neither applied here. No one claimed there were already similar non-conforming units at these hospitals, and the union didn't prove any extraordinary circumstances existed.
Northwood Health Systems, Inc., 06-RC-349713 (Regional Election Decision)
On September 4, 2024, the Northwood Workers Union filed a petition with the NLRB to represent employees at Northwood Health Systems' Wetzel County Facility in New Martinsville, West Virginia. The union wanted to represent only the employees at this one facility. The employer argued that employees from its other two facilities - Transitions and Adena Hills - should also be included in any bargaining unit.
The Wetzel County Facility has about 11 employees, while including all three facilities would make a unit of about 31 employees. All three facilities provide community behavioral health services. The facilities are spread out - Wetzel County is 28.6 miles from Adena Hills and 38.7 miles from Transitions.
Each facility operates fairly independently. Local managers handle daily work assignments, set schedules, and deal with employee issues. While the company maintains consistent policies and benefits across all locations, the facilities don't interact much. There have been very few instances of employees working at different facilities, and those cases mostly involved temporary emergency staffing situations.
On January 2, 2025, NLRB Acting Regional Director Tara Yoest issued a decision allowing the single-facility union election to proceed. She determined that just because a company has central HR policies doesn't mean individual facilities can't have their own unions. She found that the Wetzel County Facility operates independently enough to justify its own bargaining unit.
Significant Cases Cited
American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022): Reaffirmed the Specialty Healthcare standard, requiring an overwhelming community of interest to expand the petitioned-for unit.
Trane, 339 NLRB 866 (2003): Established that centralized control alone doesn't defeat single-facility presumption when local autonomy exists.
Budget Rent A Car Systems, 337 NLRB 884 (2002): Defined functional integration as requiring frequent employee contact between facilities.
New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999): Required significant workforce involvement and local supervision for meaningful interchange.