The recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the Stericycle case raises the ever-present uncertainty for entities, be they private, non-profit, union or non-union, around drafting and implementing compliant policies. The constantly evolving landscape does not only concern upholding regulations but also encompasses effective risk reduction and overseeing pertinent investigations.Read more here.
This turbulence has revived the question roiling countless boardrooms and legal departments: should handbooks and policies be revisited and revised in the aftermath of an NLRB ruling, or is this just another oscillation from an ever-swinging regulatory pendulum? The answer, as it often happens in such complex matters, is likely a blend of both moments.
On one hand, change seems imperative. The Stericycle ruling clearly demonstrated that the NLRB will scrutinize an employer’s policies diligently, highlighting the necessity for corporations to revisit and possibly revise their existing regulations.
However, on the other hand, sweeping alterations may not be the best approach. Corporations general counsel must bear in mind that the composition and the rulings of the NLRB are not static, as underlined by the Stericycle case. Past fluctuations and policy back-and-forths are well-documented instances of the NLRB’s historic volatility.
As Lathrop GPM suggests, a balanced approach is required. Drastic overhauls may not meet the best interests of the companies, and a selective, measured revision process might be more apt. Organizational leadership is called to reckon with these conflicting dynamics and to construct strategies that both react to and anticipate changing regulations.
This case serves as a poignant reminder for the legal professionals that the landscape of labor relations is ever-evolving. What the future holds is uncertain, and companies must remain vigilant, ready to adapt to unexpected rulings while preserving their operational integrity.