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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.