The LNRB encourages parties to resolve cases, to the extent possible, through settlement and not litigation. Indeed, more than 90% of meritorious cases of unfair labor practices are settled by an agreement at some point in the process, either through a board transaction or a private agreement. Most accusations of unfair labour practices (ULP) against employers are either withdrawn, dismissed or dismissed. My February 7, 2014 article focused on the mandate of former General Counsel (GC) 2011 (GC Memo 11-04), which required the regional directors of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to include a “standard language” in any informal settlement agreement. Employers and their lawyers face significant potential problems when a standard provision is included in such agreements. Among other things, a default provision gives the NLRB the right to revoke the entire transaction if, as a result of an investigation, a regional director finds that future accusations of unfair labour practices are warranted. The relief felt by many leaders in this reasonable guide was only short-lived. Some regional directors ignore General Counsel`s exhortation and continue to look for standard language in informal comparisons, even in cases where it has never been established that a company has committed even an unfair practice in the past. Thus, the Public Prosecutor`s Office, which the Board of Directors and General Counsel have tried to contain, has relentlessly pursued efforts in some areas of the NLRB. The Board found essential evidence that the employer had taken advantage of the settlement offer to prevent the worker from returning to work. The evidence was clear that the employer knew that the worker was a well-known and active supporter of the union`s efforts. In addition, the employer did not take typical defensive measures to remedy the recovery – that the employee`s work was deficient or that his reinstatement would result in friction with other employees or management.
. . .