Royal

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.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: