In her newly released GC Memo 26-04, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Crystal Carey has provided a roadmap of case precedents she wants changed as the new Trump Board moves ahead with its newly sworn three-member Republican majority.
In the memo, Carey breaks down her list of precedents into two categories: those already being challenged and those she intends to challenge later. This is a promising development from the employer perspective, but for now, the memo is just a roadmap, not a change in law.
Cases Already Being Challenged
The following is a summary from the memo outlining issues and cases that Carey says she has already begun challenging:
Severance Agreements (and other Employment Agreements): Arguing to overrule McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) in an answering brief in Valley Radiology, P.A. (10-CA-324512).
Consent Orders: Requesting to overturn Metro Health Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio Piedras, 373 NLRB No. 89 (2024) in Amazon (31-CA-317349, 31-CA-319781, 31-CA-320596).
Work Rules: Arguing to overturn Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), in Honeywell International Inc. (09-CA-327389).
Captive Audience Meetings: Encouraging the Board to reverse Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024), and return to the longstanding “captive audience” standard set in Babcock & Wilcox, 77 NLRB No. 577 (1948), in a motion to withdraw exceptions in UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (32-CA-295913, 32CA-297314).
Predictions on Impact of Unionization: Clearly stating, in a motion to withdraw exceptions in UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (32-CA-295913, 32-CA-297314), that I do not share my predecessor’s views on Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135 (2024), and will argue to the Board to reinstate Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB No. 377 (1985).
Dress Codes: In exceptions and supporting brief in Starbucks Corporation (13CA-322871, 13-CA-327142), I argue against applying Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (2022), and request that the Board reinstate Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 146 (2019).
Waiver of Right to Bargain: In a supplemental brief filed with the ALJ in HPC Industrial Group, LLC. (07-CA-308650), I noted that the standard set in Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024) should be overturned. I intend to urge the Board to return to the standard set in MV Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019).
The Next Cases to Watch
GC Carey added a second section outlining several other precedents that she intends to challenge, if and when the opportunity arises. Sections of the GC memo have been slightly edited and comments on employer impact added.
These include:
Bargaining Orders: Intent to challenge the Board’s decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), enfd., 2026 WL 1079297 (9th Cir. 2026) because Cemex is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and sound labor policy. The Board should return to and reaffirm the binding applicability of NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969) and reinstate 2 Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co., 190 NLRB 718 (1971), (1974).
Why employers should care: Cemex dramatically changed the potential consequences surrounding demands for recognition, elections, and unfair labor practice allegations during organizing campaigns. This is one of the clearest examples of a rule that could materially change organizing strategy if the Board reverses course.
Employers’ Duty to Bargain Prior to Changing Terms and Conditions of Employment: Intent to challenge the Board’s positions in Wendt Corporation, 372 NLRB No. 135 (2023), and Tecnocap, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 136 (2023), which make for slower labor contracts by requiring parties to bargain over every single issue, even those for which there is longstanding precedent of action, before making a change.
Why employers should care: this reaches directly into day-to-day contract administration and management decision-making.
Protected Concerted Activity: Intent to urge the Board to revisit Miller Plastic Products, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 134 (2023), vacated in part, 141 4th Cir. 492 (3d Cir. 2025) and Lion Elastomers, LLC, II, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023), vacated and remanded, 108 F.4th 252 (5th Cir. 2024). Lion Elastomers II is problematic and has led to the protection of generally prohibitable employee conduct tenuously connected to rights protected under the Act. Notably, Lion Elastomers is pending remand before the Board.
Why employers should care: this affects how much latitude employees may receive for abusive or otherwise objectionable conduct when it occurs in connection with protected concerted activity.
Employers’ Obligation to Discuss Dues/Fees Under Security Agreements After the Contract Expires: I disagree with Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 160, (2022), enfd., 93 F.4th 1120 (9th Cir. 2024) and will urge the Board to reconsider and return to the 1962 Bethlehem Steel standard, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), which held that an employer’s statutory obligation to check off union dues ends when its collective-bargaining agreement containing a checkoff provision expires.
Why employers should care: particularly relevant during expired-contract situations, prolonged bargaining, and decertification activity.
Novel and Unprecedented Enhanced Remedies: I intend to request the Board to reconsider Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), vacated in part, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024). Thryv remedies have yet to be tested in a compliance hearing, but courts have repeatedly struck down the case and its accompanying remedies.
Why employers should care: this could significantly affect the financial exposure attached to unfair labor practice findings.
Likely, several of the most consequential NLRB decisions of the last few years may not survive under this Board.