Workforce Bulletin

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Agencies Lose Their Independence: In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are not “independent.” The NLRB’s Board members and General Counsel serve at the President’s pleasure and can be removed at any time, for any reason—or for no reason.
• The Ripple Effect on the NLRB: Although the Slaughter ruling doesn’t affect other positions at the NLRB, it has the potential to have a significant trickle-down effect on those who report to the NLRB’s Board members or General Counsel. This will likely be compounded by the administration’s efforts to remove civil service protections for many positions at the NLRB as well as other agencies.
• A New Circuit Split on the Standard for Section 10(j) Injunctions: Applying the traditional four-part test for the first time since the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declined to accept an NLRB Regional Director’s contention that irreparable harm would result from an employer’s refusal to bargain, splitting with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits over the standard for granting injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• NLRB Nomination Signals Shifting Board Majority: The nomination of James Macy—packaged with the renomination of Democratic Member David Prouty—could give the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) a three-person Republican majority, providing the votes needed to overturn Biden-era precedents.
• Quorum Pressure Drives Confirmation Timeline: The Senate must confirm at least one nominee before Member Prouty’s term expires in August to preserve the Board’s quorum, making a swift confirmation process likely.
• Key Precedents on the Chopping Block: With a third Republican vote, the Board is expected to revisit the captive audience meeting rule, the Cemex bargaining order decision, Thryv’s expanded remedies, and standards for evaluating employer work rules.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Michael S. Ferrell discusses what a three-person Republican majority on the NLRB would mean for employers and which Biden-era precedents are most likely to be reconsidered.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• DOL Proposes Opening 401(k) Investments: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a rule establishing a process-based safe harbor for fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, opening the door to alternative assets—including cryptocurrency, private equity, and real estate—in 401(k) plans.
• NLRB Wants Its Removal Protections Stripped: The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) asked a federal court to declare unconstitutional the statutory provisions limiting the U.S. president's ability to remove members of the NLRB and administrative law judges—marking the first time the Board itself has taken this position.
• Compliance with Military Leave Requests: Amid ongoing global conflicts, employers should prepare for an influx of military leave requests and review their obligations under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, as well as any applicable state law.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Sixth Circuit Rejects Cemex Bargaining Order: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to enforce a bargaining order issued under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) 2023 Cemex standard.
• Cemex Remains in Effect Outside the Sixth Circuit: The NLRB continues to treat Cemex as binding policy in all other jurisdictions, leaving employers outside the Sixth Circuit’s reach exposed to bargaining orders under the standard.
• A Formal Reversal May Be Coming: With its current composition, the NLRB is widely expected to reject Cemex outright when the appropriate case arises—thereby restoring the long-standing framework requiring unions to win a representation election before gaining recognition.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steven M. Swirsky provides insights on the Sixth Circuit's decision and what it means for employers navigating union recognition demands.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sets New Enforcement Priorities: NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey directed regional offices to prioritize the resolution of current cases over initiating new enforcement actions.
• Department of Labor (DOL) Targets Non-Union Workplaces: In an internal memo, DOL Solicitor of Labor Jonathan Berry emphasized that enforcement would focus on non-unionized environments, noting that unions were better equipped to address issues in unionized workplaces.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Cracks Down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Policies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a warning that preference-based diversity policies may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signaled a return to systemic investigations and large-scale litigation.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new compliance tools, its proposed pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) transparency regulation, and updated enforcement priorities from the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration. We also cover the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) revamped case intake process.

➡️ DOL Releases Compliance Tools

➡️ DOL Issues Proposed Regulation for PBMs

➡️ NLRB Adjusts Intake Procedure

As another busy year for our Employment, Labor & Workforce Management clients came to a close, we asked our attorneys what issues were top of mind for our nationwide clients in 2025.

The results of this informal survey provide the opportunity not only to reflect on the challenges confronted by the global organizations we are privileged to represent, but also to prepare for what the legal landscape might hold in 2026. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on reporting tips and overtime, a widened circuit split on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority, and a delayed Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee vote on an NLRB nominee.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) new leadership is reshaping workplace policies and enforcement priorities.

The EEOC, now under the leadership of Chair Andrea Lucas and with a quorum for the first time in months, is signaling shifts in enforcement priorities that could have significant implications for employers.

Epstein Becker Green attorney James D. Mackinson discusses the latest updates from the EEOC and what they mean for employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine what employers should anticipate as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—which currently has only one active member, a Democrat, and four vacancies—moves closer to regaining a quorum and resuming full operations.

For the first time in more than 10 months, the NLRB may soon have three members, reestablishing a quorum and potentially impacting employers significantly.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Corey P. Argust discusses the implications as the NLRB moves toward full operations.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss highlights from Epstein Becker Green’s 44th Annual Workforce Management Briefing, which covered some of the most pressing issues for employers today.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys and clients from across the nation gathered in New York City this past week to share their insights on the latest developments in labor and employment law.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week, we hear from a few of the briefing’s panelists about the critical issues their clients are currently facing.

Key Topics of Discussion:

• Navigating Workplace Compliance and Litigation Risks: Panelists spoke about handling accommodation requests, defending class and collective claims, and refining termination strategies across varied regulatory landscapes.
• Adapting to Evolving Workforce Dynamics: Speakers explored managing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; return-to-office mandates; and the rise in union activity.
• Governing AI and Technology: Panelists talked about ensuring responsible artificial intelligence (AI) adoption while addressing data privacy, liability, and ethical considerations.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering four key employer-focused developments:

• a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) authority,
• another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections,
• the White House’s reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and
• a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) early right-to-sue policy.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we look at the potential restoration of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) deregulatory initiatives, and lessons from a high-profile workplace incident at a Coldplay concert.

On July 17, 2025, President Trump announced that he was nominating Scott Mayer and James R. Murphy, both Republicans, to serve as Members of the National Labor Relations Board. Mayer is presently the Chief Labor Counsel at The Boeing Corporation and James R. Murphy is a career NLRB attorney who has served as the Chief Counsel for several prior Board Members. The Board presently has two members: Republican Chairman Marvin Kaplan, and Democratic member David Prouty.  Kaplan’s term is set to expire in August 2025, and it has been reported that Kaplan does not wish to be nominated for another term. If both Mayer and Murphy are confirmed after August 2025, the Board would have three-member quorum, including a Republican majority, and would be expected to begin to issue decisions. The fifth seat on the Board would remain vacant.

The President’s nominee for General Counsel, Crystal Carey, a management-side labor attorney, is currently pending before the Senate.  She appeared before the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee on July 16, 2025.  At this time William Cowen continues to serve as the agency’s Acting General Counsel at this time.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re bringing you a special episode on the first 100 days of the Trump administration, in which we highlight sweeping policy shifts, battles at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); revisions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by the full court, has ordered that the stay of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox’s reinstatement to her seat on the Board be dissolved and that Wilcox, for the second time, be returned to her seat. This action by the D.C. Circuit means that the NLRB once again has three members and a “quorum,” as that term is defined in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Back and Forth and Back Again

As we previously reported, on February 3, President Trump fired Wilcox from her seat on the Board, leaving only two of the Board’s five seats filled and stripping the NLRB of the quorum required by the NLRA for the Board to issue decisions, make rules, and fulfill other statutory duties.

On March 28, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump likely has the authority to remove National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox, as well as Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, without cause. In granting the Government’s motion for an emergency stay of the reinstatement orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the appeals court has once again left the NLRB without a quorum.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering a change in leadership at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the reinstatement of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) member Gwynne Wilcox (restoring a crucial quorum), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) focus on new enforcement priorities.

What Does This Mean For Employers?

To say that the past fifty days have been a period of significant changes at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is surely an understatement. On January 27^th, the President terminated Biden appointee Jennifer Abruzzo from her role as the Board’s General Counsel and on February 3^rd appointed William Cowen, a career Board lawyer, to serve as Acting General Counsel.   

That same day, the President fired Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a Member of the Board. The firing of Wilcox left the Board without a quorum, which it must have to issue decisions and engage in rulemaking. Wilcox brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging her termination and seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the President could not terminate a Board Member other than for cause as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) and seeking her immediate reinstatement to her seat on the Board. On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted Wilcox summary judgment and ordered Board Chair Marvin Kaplan to reinstate her for the remainder of five-year term which is set to expire on August 27, 2028. So where does this leave employers, unions and anyone else who has business before the Board?

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the risks tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that employers face due to the Trump administration’s executive orders and the ensuing scrutiny from federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

President Trump’s two anti-DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked, but some employers are adjusting policies and shifting the way they collect workforce data. While critical obligations, such as EEO-1 reporting, remain in place, the EEOC’s acting chair has indicated the agency will prioritize addressing race and gender discrimination and bias.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jill K. Bigler and Briar L. McNutt discuss how employers can balance compliance with federal, state, and international regulations while effectively mitigating risks.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering significant updates shaping workplace policies, including shifts in regulations and enforcement related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); evolving approaches to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance; and recent changes in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) guidance.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how the loss of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the rollback of affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, are creating significant hurdles for employers.

The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB’s general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements.

President Donald Trump has made several significant and sudden changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”), the agency responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, he appointed current Commissioner Republican Andrea Lucas as new Acting Chair and then removed Karla Gilbride (a nominee of former President Biden) from her role as EEOC General Counsel.  Both of these decisions were routine and unsurprising for the start of a new presidential administration. President Trump then removed Commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, two of the three Democratic commissioners.  This move was far from routine and is likely to be challenged in court.

These sweeping changes initiated by President Trump at the EEOC should be seen as a critical element of an ever-expanding goal of government-wide elimination, not just of DEI, but of all forms of affirmative action.  This remaking of the EEOC should be viewed in parallel with Trump’s firing of two Democratic Members and the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, revocation of Executive Order 11246, which contractually required covered federal government contractors and subcontractors to meet certain affirmative action obligations, and the possible elimination of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we are focused on the immediate impact employers face from the rush of Trump administration executive orders, memos, and proclamations.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term. On his first day back, he signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, many of which have a direct impact on both public- and private-sector employers.

In this week’s episode, we turn to Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp to help clients make sense of this flurry of activity. Tune in as Paul outlines what employers can anticipate from Trump 2.0 in the months ahead.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, while recognizing that it’s far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations.

We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, a few of our labor and employment attorneys share their insights on the key issues and emerging trends shaping the employment law landscape as we move into 2025.

Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead

Happy New Year! As we kick off 2025, we’re exploring key legal trends for employers, with a focus on the implications of the incoming Trump administration.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice discuss their predictions on how these changes could shape the employment law landscape in the year ahead.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

Just hours after it became clear that Donald Trump would be returning to the White House, the majority Democratic National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) showed no signs of slowing down its efforts to implement the Biden Administration’s pro-labor agenda before January 20. In its latest decision the Board severely curtailed what types of statements employers can make to employees when pointing out the legal and practical effects of unionization.

On November 8, 2024, the NLRB issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135, which overturned long-standing case law Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985). Under Tri-Cast, the Board held that it was lawful for employers to accurately explain that a union’s certification as the collective bargaining representative of employees would change the relationship between the employer and its employees, holding that, “there is no threat, either explicit or implicit, in a statement which explains to employees that, when they select a union to represent them, the relationship that existed between the employees and employer will not be as before,” regardless of “the truth or falsity of the parties campaign statements.” Tri-Cast, 274 NLRB 377, 378 (quoting Midland National Life Insurance Co., 263 NLRB 127, 133 (1982)).

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the final mental health parity rules, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memo on restrictive covenant limitations, and New York State’s recently enacted workplace violence prevention law.

National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (“Abruzzo”) issued a General Counsel Memo (Memo GC 25-01) last week signaling that employers could face civil prosecution and significant monetary remedies for using non-compete and so-called “stay-or-pay” provisions in agreements with their employees.The new memo, issued on October 7, 2024, builds on Abruzzo’s earlier General Counsel Memo issued in May 2023, where, as we reported, she outlined her belief that nearly all post-employment non-competes violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Since Abruzzo’s May 2023 memo, employers have witnessed a number of significant developments in this space, including the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) issuance of a rule in April 2024 banning the use of most non-competes and a subsequent decision by a Texas federal judge blocking that FTC rule. In June 2024, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company finding that non-competes and non-solicitation clauses violate the Act, a decision currently being appealed to the Board.

In her October 7, 2024 memo, Abruzzo again urges the Board to find non-competes with all employees who are subject to the Act’s jurisdiction (nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees) to violate the Act except in a few limited circumstances, arguing that such provisions are frequently “self-enforcing” and deter employee mobility. She also advocates for “make whole” remedies where employers are found to have continued to maintain unlawful non-competes. Specifically, the memo argues that merely voiding such provisions is insufficient and that employees should be afforded the right to seek compensatory relief for the “ill effects” that flow from complying with “unlawful non-compete provisions.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining how recent employer-initiated challenges to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) structure have arisen due to the agency’s broad interpretation of its enforcement authority, leading to significant legal obstacles.

The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB’s structure be at risk?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB’s broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB’s authority.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court’s affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) McLaren Macomb decision.

On September 12, 2024, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) Region 22 in Newark, New Jersey, issued an unfair labor practice complaint against a New Jersey building services company, alleging that employee non-hire (or “no poach”) provisions in the company’s contracts with its building clients violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

According to the NLRB’s news release, the complaint alleges that Planned Companies D/B/A Planned Building Services, which is a janitorial, building maintenance, and concierge services provider, “has maintained provisions in its contracts with its client buildings that interfere with, and are inherently destructive of, workers’ rights under Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.”  It further alleges that “Planned Companies restricts its client buildings from soliciting its employees to work for them in a similar job classification for a period of six months after the agreement is terminated, or from hiring employees after they leave Planned Companies’ employment. Any entity retained by the client building to replace Planned Companies is also bound by the hiring restriction.” 

A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge has been set for November 12, 2024.

In an action brought by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, commonly known as SpaceX, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, has declared that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) is unconstitutional.

The determination is the basis for an Order granting SpaceX’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining the NLRB General Counsel, as well as the presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board Members and NLRB staff, from proceeding with a scheduled unfair labor practice ...

In response to President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 calling for a coordinated U.S. government approach to ensuring the responsible and safe development and use of AI, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2024-1 (the “Bulletin”). This Bulletin, published on April 29, 2024, provides guidance on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other federal labor standards in the context of increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated systems in the workplace.

Importantly, reinforcing the DOL’s position expressed in the Joint Statement on Enforcement of Civil Rights, Fair Competition, Consumer Protection, and Equal Opportunity Laws in Automated Systems, the WHD confirms that the historical federal laws enforced by the WHD will continue to apply to new technological innovations, such as workplace AI.  The WHD also notes that, although AI and automated systems may streamline tasks for employers, improve workplace efficiency and safety, and enhance workforce accountability, implementation of such tools without responsible human oversight may pose potential compliance challenges.

The Bulletin discusses multiple ways in which AI interacts with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (“PUMP Act”), and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”). The Bulletin makes the following pronouncements regarding the potential compliance issues that may arise due to the use of AI to perform wage-and-hour tasks:

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re running down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recently released final rule on worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the challenges faced by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) joint-employer rule, and SpaceX’s groundbreaking suit against the NLRB.

Almost a decade ago, in September 2014, California was the first state in the nation to enact legislation prohibiting non-disparagement clauses that aimed to prevent consumers from writing negative reviews of a business. Popularly referred to as the “Yelp Bill,” AB 2365 was codified at California Civil Code Section 1670.8, which prohibits businesses from threatening or otherwise requiring consumers, in a contract or proposed contract for sale or lease of consumer goods, to waive their right to make any statement—positive or negative—regarding the business or ...

Since 2015, employers have faced continued uncertainty regarding which standard the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) will apply when determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Businesses utilizing contractors and staffing firms or operating in partnering arrangements, as well as those engaged in providing temporaries and other contingent workers, have faced a moving target before the Board when it comes to potential responsibility in union recognition, bargaining obligations, and unfair labor ...