In an ongoing trend of upheaval in precedents, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) once again reshaped the guidelines on what individual actions may be labelled as “concerted,” and hence, protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This 3-1 decision was disclosed on August 31, as reported by
JD Supra.
The case in question is Miller Plastic Products, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 134 (2023), where the Board overruled its 2019 decision in Alstate Maintenance. The overturned decision had created a checklist of specific considerations to be examined while assessing whether an individual’s action could benefit a group and thus fall under the ambit of the NLRA.
The NLRB’s frequently shifting stances on the interpretation of ‘concerted activity’ under the NLRA creates a challenging landscape for legal professionals and corporations. These changes highlight the fluidity of the definitions that underpin labor laws and underscore the importance of keeping up to date with the NLRB’s positions to ensure compliance with labor relations norms.
As we continue to observe the NLRB’s actions, further debate and discussion in the legal and business communities can be expected. Understanding not only the explicit changes in language and interpretation but also the broader implications of such shifts on labor relations will be critical to navigating these evolving challenges.