What employers need to know about new workplace rule interpretation
NLRA guidance contains a more employer-friendly view
What employers need to know about new workplace rule interpretation
NLRA guidance contains a more employer-friendly view
On Feb. 27, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued Memorandum GC-03 and, for employers, it is a notable shift in tone. While not binding law, the memorandum signals a shift toward more employer-friendly, efficient and less aggressive enforcement by the board and regional offices. It encourages lawful settlements, limits “enhanced” remedies and reduces the review of “maintenance-only” cases.
The memorandum first puts forth a renewed focus on employee settlements. Regional offices have been directed to approve both informal NLRB settlements and non-board agreements, as well as approve withdrawal requests, so long as the terms are lawful and the parameters are reasonable. In practice, this means that employers may see a greater flexibility to resolve disputes early, avoid prolonged litigation and control outcomes. The memorandum also reins in the use of “enhanced” remedies, such as notice readings, apology letters or nationwide postings. These remedies are now framed as appropriate only in cases involving particularly egregious conduct. Employers may see a recalibration of settlements toward proportionality and ensuring that settlement terms closely align with the underlying alleged violation.
Perhaps the most impactful guidance involves “maintenance-only” cases — cases in which an unfair labor practice is based solely on the employer’s maintenance of potentially unlawful rules, without any allegation(s) that the rule was enforced against or impacted actual employees. This instruction is a shift away from the 2023 decision in the Stericycle case, which many employers will recall. In Stericycle, the board held that workplace rules would be found to unlawfully violate the National Labor Relations Act if an employee could show that the rule might prevent them from exercising their Section 7 rights. In making that assessment, the NLRB stated that it would interpret the employer’s rule from the perspective of an employee who is (1) subject to the rule, (2) economically dependent on the employer and who (3) contemplates engaging in the concerted activity. If the employee could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning, the NLRB would assume the rule was unlawful.
The Stericycle decision created a low bar for an employee to bring a claim and included no requirement that the employee demonstrate that the employer had enforced the rule or that the employee faced any actual impact due to the rule. This decision created a push for employers to intensely scrutinize their handbooks, rules, and other policies and narrow their policies to avoid any potential claims by employees that the handbook alone violates their Section 7 rights.
By contrast, the new memorandum indicates that the new NLRB administration is distancing itself from the Stericycle decision and puts forth a more employer-friendly view of rule-interpretation cases, raising the bar for employees and requiring them to put forth evidence that the employer is enforcing the rule and there is actual impact on the employee(s). Accordingly, these maintenance-based allegations are likely to hold less water with the NLRB and regions are encouraged to promptly seek settlement in any pending complaints or charges of this nature.
This guidance offers employers some breathing room, allowing for more opportunity to settle early and efficiently, and minimizes exposure for technical violations. That said, this memorandum is administrative guidance, not binding law, and reflects only the priorities of current agency leadership. As many employers have experienced, NLRB enforcement priorities can shift quickly with changes in administration. Employers should be prepared for future agency shifts and remain alert regarding their policies or rules and consider how such policies may be interpreted by their employees.
Hannah Devoe is an attorney in Drummond Woodsum’s Labor and Employment practice, where she advises public and private employers in New Hampshire on a wide range of employment law matters, with a focus on evolving regulatory and policy developments.
