Labor: NLRB requires employers to post union rights notice
Nearly all private-sector employers must display the notice in their workplace by Nov. 14.
September 06, 2011 at 06:42 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On Aug. 26, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its final rule requiring almost all private-sector employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The 11-by-17-inch notice is similar in content and design to the notice of NLRA rights that must be posted by federal contractors pursuant to Department of Labor requirements.
The posting requirement applies to nearly all private-sector employers subject to the NLRA, which excludes agricultural, railroad and airline employers. Because NLRA rights apply to union and non-union workplaces, all employers subject to the Board's jurisdiction (aside from the United States Postal Service) will be required to post the notice. Retailers with a gross annual volume of business less than $500,000, and nonretail entities that sell or purchase fewer than $50,000 in annual goods or services are exempt from this rule.
Covered employers must post notices informing employees of their NLRA rights, NLRB contact information and information concerning basic enforcement procedures in a conspicuous place. Among other provisions, the notice expressly informs employees of their rights to:
- Organize a union to negotiate wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
- Bargain collectively for a contract through representatives chosen by employees
- Discuss the terms and conditions of their employment or union organizing efforts with co-workers or union representatives
- Take immediate action to improve their working conditions by raising work-related complaints directly with their employer, a government agency, or a union
- Strike and picket under certain circumstances
- Choose to opt-out of joining or remaining a union member
The notice continues, listing several examples of unlawful behavior under the NLRA, and providing employees with instructions on how to contact the NLRB with questions or complaints.
Failure to post the notice may result in the NLRB finding that that the employer has committed an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. The NLRB also asserts that failure to post the notice may lead to the tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice charges.
Similar to postings required by the Department of Labor, the NLRB notice must be posted in conspicuous places where they are readily seen by employees, including all places where notices to employees concerning personnel rules or policies are customarily posted. However, the NLRB also is requiring employers to post the notice electronically “on an intranet or internet site if the employer customarily communicates with its employees about personnel rules or policies by such means.” Translated versions of the notice must be posted at workplaces where at least 20 percent of the employees are not proficient in English.
A copy of the notice will be available at http://nlrb.gov/forms. Employers have until Nov. 14, 2011 to post the notice. Federal contractors who already post the notice required by Executive Order 13496 will be deemed to be in compliance with the new rule.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250