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

August 21, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for July 2018

August 21, 2018

Business lobbyists reportedly are urging the Trump Administration to not re-nominate National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Mark Gaston Pearce (D) for a third term. Pearce’s term at the five-member Board is scheduled to expire on August 27, 2018. Pearce has drawn the ire of business groups for what many believe to be an anti-... Read More

August 8, 2018

Missouri Right-to-Work Rejected by Voters

August 8, 2018

Missouri voters have rejected the state right-to-work law. Senate Bill 19, which would have made Missouri the nation’s 28th right-to-work state, was passed by the Missouri legislature on February 2, 2017, and signed into law by then-Governor Eric Greitens. Labor organizations and their supporters gathered enough signatures to keep the... Read More

July 19, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for June 2018

July 19, 2018

Public sector employees who are non-members of a union cannot be legally required to pay agency or “fair share” fees as a condition of employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 ruling. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, No. 16-1466 (June 27, 2018). The Court decided that a state’s enforcement of a provision in a collective... Read More