How NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb Wants to Upend Obama-Era Precedent
Peter Robb's guidance will be crucial in outlining the board's priorities moving forward.
December 05, 2017 at 03:27 PM
5 minute read
The new National Labor Relations Board general counsel telegraphed his intention to confront Obama-era regulations and work with the agency's Republican leadership to upend “changes in precedent” over the last eight years.
Peter RobbPeter Robb, the newly appointed NLRB general counsel, sent a memo to the regional directors outlining priorities on which types of charges should be submitted to the office. Robb included a checklist highlighting policy shifts made by the Obama-era board that the business community protested. The Dec. 1 memo also rescinded guidance from his predecessor Richard Griffin, a former union chief.
“The advice memo signals the GC's intent to assist the board in undoing much of the Obama-era board's sweeping changes to federal labor law,” Steptoe & Johnson LLP associate Erin Bass wrote on Monday on the firm's labor and employment blog.
The Republican control of the labor board was established with the confirmations of Marvin Kaplan, who previously was chief counsel of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and former Littler Mendelson management-side attorney William Emanuel. Chairman Philip Miscimarra, a Republican member, has announced his intention to step down. His replacement has not yet been tapped. Robb joined the board from Downs Rachlin Martin in Vermont.
Robb's guidance will be crucial in outlining the board's priorities moving forward. The position has the power to bring forward cases for the board to consider.
Robb's memo nixed Griffin's efforts to extend the rights of employees to use email systems for union organizing or group discussions, and the new directives voided Obama-era guidance that a company's misclassification of an employee as independent contractors was on its face a violation federal labor law.
The wish list included a host of topics that have been high on the minds of the business community for several years that he would like to see the board overturn. These include cases involving employer handbook rules that were found unlawful under the previous board, such as disrespectful conduct, rules governing “no camera” or “no recording” and rules requiring employees to maintain confidentiality of workplace investigations.
The general counsel also said he is seeking cases where employees, despite obscene or vulgar behavior or actions, did not lose protection under the National Labor Relations Act. He also asked the regional directors to look for cases involving an employee's social media postings to address the question over whether or not such speech is protected.
One of the most controversial decisions by the Obama-era board was the decision that expanded the scope of what is considered a joint employment relationship. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments over the board's ruling and legislation passed the House of Representatives addressing the issue. Robb, asking regional directors to look out for such cases, intends to revisit this issue.
Michael Lotito, a Littler Mendelson attorney and chairman of the Workplace Policy Institute, said Robb's directives shed light on the broad array of precedents the board will tackle once it starts hearing cases. They are significant, he said, because the general counsel's role will be key in finding cases to push forward this Republican leadership agenda.
“What struck me about it was how quickly he drafted this memo and sent it out, as well as the broad array of issues that need to be addressed,” Lotito said. “It suggests that someone has been giving great deal of thought to his role, that he is someone who has been prepared for the position and individual wants to take action.”
Lotito said Robb, as general counsel, will have the power to “mold the issues before the board.” He added: “I think what the general counsel is doing is painting a broad brush to find the cases that have the best factual underlying scenarios to present issues to the board members.”
Robb's memo is posted below:
Read more:
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
© 2024 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 All‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readEmployers Scramble to Get Immigration Records in Order Ahead of Trump Crackdown
6 minute readHospital Succeeds in Denying Vaccine Religious Accommodation Through 'Undue Hardship' Defense
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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