Top Five Labor Law Developments for June 2026

1. The U.S. Supreme Court expanded the president’s authority to remove independent federal agencies’ principal officers. Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 (June 29, 2026). The Court reversed Humphrey’s Executor, long-standing Court precedent that found Congress could create job protections for certain executive branch positions and upheld President Donald Trump’s removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter before the expiration of her statutory term. The Court reasoned that Article II of the Constitution vests executive power exclusively in the president and requires that principal officers exercising executive authority remain subject to presidential supervision and removal. President Trump similarly removed Board Member Gwynne Wilcox in January 2025 before the expiration of her five-year term. Although this decision involved the removal of an FTC officer, it likely ends Wilcox’s challenge to her removal by eliminating the constitutional basis of the National Labor Relations Act’s for-cause removal protections. The ruling allows future administrations to reshape the National Labor Relations Board more quickly, likely accelerating shifts in Board policy.
    
2. The Department of Labor issued a rule expanding union financial reporting requirements. The Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) revised the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act reporting requirements by creating a new LM-2 Long Form for unions with more than $40 million in annual receipts and increasing filing thresholds for Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4. OLMS said the rule modernizes decades-old reporting requirements, enhances financial transparency for union members, and better reflects the size and complexity of today’s labor organizations. Effective July 1, the rule requires the largest labor organizations to provide more detailed disclosures regarding their income, expenditures, investments, political activities, and contract negotiation and organizing expenses, while reducing reporting obligations for many smaller unions. According to OLMS, only 99 unions, representing approximately top 2% of Form LM-2 filers based on 2024 data, would have been required to file the new LM-2 Long Form. 
    
3. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) voted along party lines on July 15 to advance Board nominees to the full Senate. The HELP Committee held a June 10 confirmation hearing for James Macy, President Trump’s third Republican nominee to the Board, and incumbent Democratic Member David Prouty, who has been nominated for a second term. During the hearing, Macy, currently director of the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, pledged to decide cases independently, emphasized the need to reduce the Board’s case backlog, and suggested that some recurring labor law issues may be better addressed through rulemaking than adjudication. Confirmation of at least one nominee to the Board before Prouty’s term expires on August 27 is necessary to preserve the Board’s quorum. Macy’s confirmation would give Republicans a 3-1 Board majority.
    
4. The Board’s Division of Advice issued two memoranda stating noncompete agreements generally do not violate the Act. The memoranda concluded that employers generally do not violate the Act by maintaining noncompete agreements or certain related post-employment restrictions, marking a significant departure from the prior general counsel’s enforcement approach. In a May 5, 2026, memorandum, the Division concluded that noncompete and confidentiality provisions in a Biotricity employment agreement were lawful because they did not, as a general matter, interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights. The Division also found the employer’s related state court lawsuit and arbitration demand lawful. A separate memorandum likewise concluded that post-employment employee non-solicitation, customer non-solicitation, and cooperation provisions in a separation agreement did not violate the Act. Although Advice memoranda are not binding Board precedent, these signal that the general counsel’s office intends to take a narrower approach in challenging restrictive covenants under the Act.
    
5. A Board administrative law judge held that a union waived an employee’s Weingarten claim by abandoning the issue during the grievance process. HPC Industrial Group, LLC, No. 07-CA-308650 (June 18, 2026). Although the employer discharged an employee, in part, because he refused to submit to post-accident drug and alcohol testing without a union representative, the administrative law judge dismissed the complaint, concluding that the union clearly and unmistakably waived the employee’s Weingarten claim. In Weingarten, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees are entitled to union representation during employer investigatory meetings under certain circumstances. Applying the Board’s “clear and unmistakable” waiver standard, the judge found the union knew the employee’s refusal was a basis for his discharge and consciously chose not to pursue the Weingarten issue during the grievance process. The decision shows that a union’s handling of a grievance may effectively waive an employee’s Weingarten claim. 

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with questions about these and other workplace developments.