{"id":9787,"date":"2026-02-07T03:35:45","date_gmt":"2026-02-07T03:35:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/nlrb-acting-general-counsel-rescinds-biden-era-guidance\/"},"modified":"2026-02-07T03:35:45","modified_gmt":"2026-02-07T03:35:45","slug":"nlrb-acting-general-counsel-rescinds-biden-era-guidance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/nlrb-acting-general-counsel-rescinds-biden-era-guidance\/","title":{"rendered":"NLRB Acting General Counsel Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div id=\"contentSummaryCollapse\" style=\"--intro-p-height: 10.3125rem;\">\n<div class=\"inner-collapse\">\n<p>The NLRB under the Trump administration is expected to implement significant changes to labor policy. As expected, on February 14, 2025, the newly appointed National Labor Relations Board (\u201cNLRB\u201d) Acting General Counsel William Cowen rescinded a series of memoranda that had been issued by the former NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. Cowen also announced his intent to issue new guidance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-center\" style=\"text-align: center;\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*<\/p>\n<p>A February 14, 2025 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nlrb.gov\/news-outreach\/news-story\/gc-25-05-rescission-of-certain-general-counsel-memoranda\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">memorandum<\/a> from Cowen rescinded an array of NLRB General Counsel memoranda that had been issued by his predecessor. In the memorandum, Cowen stated that the rescissions were intended to address \u201can ever-increasing workload\u201d that is \u201cno longer sustainable\u201d for NLRB staff to manage. The rescinded memoranda include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>GC 23-05 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d45839f6ad1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the <em>McLaren Macomb<\/em> Decision<\/a>\u201d). This memorandum discussed the NLRB\u2019s ruling in <em>McLaren Macomb<\/em> regarding the extent to which non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in employee separation agreements can interfere with employees\u2019 rights to organize under the National Labor Relations Act (\u201cNLRA\u201d). Although the recission does not overturn the <em>McLaren Macomb <\/em>decision, which we previously discussed here, it does obviate General Counsel Abruzzo\u2019s prior guidance on that decision, including her guidance that \u201csavings clause[s] or disclaimer language . . . would not necessarily cure overly broad [confidentiality or non-disparagement] provisions.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>GC 23-08 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d4583a87168\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Non-Compete Agreements that Violate the National Labor Relations Act<\/a>\u201d). This memorandum, which we previously discussed here, takes the view that, except in limited circumstances, \u201cnon-compete agreements between employers and employees [that] prohibit employees from accepting certain types of jobs and operating certain types of businesses after the end of their employment\u201d interfere with employees\u2019 rights to organize under the NLRA.<\/li>\n<li>GC 25-01 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d4583e5510c\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and \u2018Stay-or-Pay\u2019 Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act<\/a>\u201d). This memorandum asserts that \u201cstay-or-pay\u201d agreements\u2014<em>i.e.<\/em>, agreements that require an employee to pay back certain benefits (such as sign-on bonuses, training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPS), relocation expenses, or tuition and educational reimbursements) in the event the employee does not remain employed with the employer for a certain period of time\u2014are presumptively unlawful under the NLRA. Our previous discussion of this memorandum is available here.<\/li>\n<li>GC 21-06 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d458353f6b9\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Seeking Full Remedies<\/a>\u201d) and GC 21-07 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d458354fad5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Full Remedies in Settlement Agreements<\/a>\u201d). These memoranda instructed the NLRB Regions to seek the \u201cfull panoply of remedies available\u201d in unfair labor practice cases, and to craft settlement agreements that \u201censure the most full and effective relief.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>GC 24-01 (\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/apps.nlrb.gov\/link\/document.aspx\/09031d4583baa9f3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the Board\u2019s Decision in <em>Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC<\/em><\/a>\u201d). This memorandum provided guidance concerning the NLRB\u2019s 2023 decision to adopt a new union-friendly recognition standard for employers confronted with a demand for recognition of a union.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Going forward, employers can expect that the NLRB under the Trump administration will continue to implement significant changes to labor policy, including a shift in its enforcement priorities. Those changes may take time, as the NLRB does not yet have a quorum, and a new general counsel has not yet been confirmed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-center\" style=\"text-align: center;\">*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*<\/p>\n<p>Find more Blog posts about litigation and regulatory developments that affect the workplace\u00a0here.<\/p>\n<p>View other S&amp;C insights relating to\u00a0President Trump\u2019s recent executive orders.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The NLRB under the Trump administration is expected to implement significant changes to labor policy. As expected, on February 14, 2025, the newly appointed National Labor Relations Board [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9788,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[4360,6141,654,1009,3798,369,5548],"class_list":["post-9787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-acting","tag-bidenera","tag-counsel","tag-general","tag-guidance","tag-nlrb","tag-rescinds"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9787"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9787\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9788"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}