Not Again: National Labor Board May Seek to Bring Back Micro-Units

January 6, 2022

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is inviting public parties and amici to submit briefs to address the controversial issue of petitioned-for bargaining units.

The rise of this hotly contested concept is the result of a recent case, American Steel Construction,  the merits of which have prompted the NLRB to reconsider reverting back to the standard established in a 2011 case, Specialty Healthcare, which made it easier for unions to organize employees into “micro-units.”


A “micro-unit” is a small portion of the total number of employees at a worksite which a labor union seeks to represent. This practice of targeting smaller groups of employees and providing them their own union representation presents a grave danger to employers and trade groups as it has been found to undermine worker’s rights and productivity.


A 2017 case, PCC Structurals, disfavored the use of these units, overturning the standard set in 2011. Now, the Biden board is likely to return to the 2011 standard, which was whether the employees encompassed a petitioned-for bargaining unit were readily identifiable as a group and shared a community interest. 


Now that the NLRB has granted review of the issue, public parties are invited to e-file briefs before January 21, 2022 regarding the following:


  1. Should the Board adhere to the standard in PCC Structurals, Inc., as revised in The Boeing Company?
  2. If not, what standard should replace it? Should the Board return to the standard in Specialty Healthcare, either in its entirety or with modifications?


If the NLRB reverts back to the 2011 standard, it would be treading in dangerous waters, returning to harmful precedent in which the Board would accept the petitioned-for unit as appropriate in all cases except those in which the objecting party would somehow manage to survive a nearly impossible burden of proving that excluded employees share an “overwhelming community of interest” with included employees.


The return of micro-units is sure to awaken an uproar last seen over a decade ago and is almost certain to create division and discord in the workplace. 


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

By The Royal Law Firm September 15, 2025
Welcome Zeno!
By The Royal Law Firm August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.