Search form

NLRB Regional Directors’ Formal Unfair Labor Practices Complaints to be Reported to Federal Database

By Daniel V. Duff III and Philip B. Rosen
  • July 8, 2016

The National Labor Relations Board has stated that it will report to a federal database all unfair labor practice complaints issued by its Regional Directors beginning July 1, 2016, in order to comply with “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673 (which has been called the “blacklisting” executive order).

The sweeping Executive Order, signed by President Barack Obama on July 31, 2014, requires employers bidding on government contract solicitations with an estimated value greater than $500,000 to report their previous three years of “violations” of 14 federal employment and labor statutes (and equivalent state laws) during the bidding process, with updates every six months if the contract is awarded. Federal agencies would consider the three-year record in determining whether to award future contracts, cancel existing ones, and demand remedial action to address a pattern of violations.

“Violation” has been defined in the Department of Labor’s proposed final guidance and regulations for E.O. 13673 to include agency determinations (extending even to agency prosecutors’ threshold determinations of “reasonable cause”), arbitral awards, and civil judgments. This broad definition, if implemented, has significant consequences for employers. For example, on July 1, 2016, the NLRB directed its field offices that whenever an NLRB Regional Director issues an unfair labor practice complaint against an employer, the NLRB will report the employer to a federal database to comply with E.O. 13673; an adjudicatory decision by the NLRB, following an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge and argument on the issues, is unnecessary for this purpose. Memorandum OM 16-23 states that NLRB field offices must request the employer to fill out and remit a business identification form, including the employer’s: (1) Commercial And Government Entity number; (2) Data Universal Numbers System (“DUNS”) number; (3) DUNS plus 4 suffix; and (4) Employer Identification Number or Taxpayer Identification. However, the NLRB will not send information to the database if the employer settles or otherwise resolves the matter before the issuance of the formal complaint. Accordingly, the NLRB can utilize the possibility of its submission of this information to the database as leverage in settlement negotiations with employers.

Generally, when a union or individual files a charge with the NLRB claiming an unfair labor practice by an employer under the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB’s investigation of the charge would involve seeking a position statement, witness affidavits, or other evidence from the employer to refute the claim. If the NLRB Regional Office determines there is enough evidence to pursue the charge, a Regional Director will issue a formal administrative complaint against the employer. The issues presented in the complaint will then be tried before an Administrative Law Judge. In issuing Memorandum OM 16-23, the NLRB has taken the position that a mere determination that there is enough evidence to prosecute a charge, rather than a formal adjudication of an actual violation by the Board, is the point at which an employer’s alleged violation must be reported to the E.O. 13673 database.

The Department of Labor’s proposed final guidance and regulations to implement E.O. 13673 were sent to Office of Management and Budget for review and approval on May 4, 2016. There is no official date set for the guidance and regulations becoming final.

Employers facing actual or potential unfair labor practice issues should consult competent counsel early to evaluate the potential impact of the possible disclosure of prospective “violations” on future government contracting opportunities and weigh this, among other considerations, in determining whether early case resolution makes sense.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about the E.O.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

December 18, 2018

Is That Robot in the Bargaining Unit?

December 18, 2018

Drones fly over the jobsite, snapping photos of progress and scanning the area for possible safety concerns. A 3D-printer churns out customized parts and scaled models. A remote-controlled robot lays bricks meticulously, with near-perfect precision and five times faster than a human. According to a recent survey by Software Connect,... Read More

December 18, 2018

Union Pulls Rug from Labor Board’s Review of ‘8(f)/9(a)’ Relationships

December 18, 2018

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has suspended briefing in a case on whether National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 9(a) bargaining relationships in the construction industry may be established by contract language alone. The union that brought the underlying charge in the matter withdrew the charge. NLRA Section 9(a) vs... Read More

December 14, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for November 2018

December 14, 2018

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman John Ring has announced that revisions to the Board’s election rules are a “long-term” action item. This may indicate the revisions to the Obama-era election rules (in effect since April 2015) are less of a priority for the upcoming year than other Board initiatives. Ring also publicly... Read More