NLRB General Counsel Releases Roadmap for Overturning Biden-Era Precedents

Key Points:

• GC Memo 26-04 identifies over a dozen Biden-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedents that General Counsel Crystal Carey has either asked the Board to overturn or plans to challenge when the right case arises.
• Backlog progress is significant – the agency has resolved over 9,200 pending cases since Carey took office in January, cutting the inherited backlog by more than 50%.
• No law has changed yet. The memo reflects the GC’s litigating positions, not new Board decisions. Employers should continue following existing precedent while tracking these developments.

On August 26, 2026, NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey issued Memorandum GC 26-04, titled “Further Guidance Regarding General Counsel Priorities.” This is the most detailed signal yet of where federal labor law is heading under the current administration – and it’s good news for employers who have been waiting for a course correction after years of aggressive enforcement.

Carey isn’t sacrificing case processing for precedent setting. Therefore, Regions are not required to submit the Biden-era Board decisions that she takes issue with to the Division of Advice for headquarters-level review. Rather, Regions are instructed to continue investigating and, if justified, prosecuting under existing law while the GC pursues doctrinal change through targeted cases.

What’s in the GC’s Memo?

Carey identifies specific Biden-era Board decisions she wants overturned. Some are her stated positions — arguments she has already presented to the Board in pending cases. Others are anticipated positions she intends to raise when an appropriate case arises. The big targets include:

• Cemex bargaining orders. Carey wants the Board to return to the traditional Gissel/Linden Lumber framework for union recognition disputes, moving away from the controversial 2023 rule that allowed the Board to order bargaining without a secret ballot election.
• Work rules. She is arguing to reverse the Stericycle standard that made it easier to strike down common sense workplace policies as unlawful.
• Captive-audience meetings. Carey is urging the Board to overrule Amazon.com and restore the Board’s 1948 decision in Babcock & Wilcox, which allowed employers to hold mandatory meetings discussing unionization. This is a major one for companies that rely on employee communications during organizing campaigns.
• Management rights. She wants to restore the “contract coverage” standard, making it easier for employers to act under their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) without triggering a duty to bargain over every decision.
• Dues checkoff. Carey seeks a return to the rule that an employer’s obligation to deduct union dues generally ends when the CBA expires.
• Thryv expanded remedies. She’s challenging the Board’s expansion of monetary penalties for unfair labor practices.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Don’t jump the gun. These are simply the General Counsel’s litigating positions — she argues cases, but the Board decides them. Until the Board actually overrules these precedents, they remain good law. That said, this memo is an early-warning system. Employers should:

• Continue complying with current NLRB standards.
• Watch for Board decisions on these issues in the coming months.
• Consider whether pending matters present opportunities to preserve arguments aligned with the GC’s announced positions.

For more information, please contact Mark Eskenazi at (202) 461-3109 or meskenazi@foxrothschild.com, or another member of Fox Rothschild’s Labor & Employment Department. Listen to Mark’s podcast, “Labor Law Lineup,” on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this blog post should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this post without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily this law firm or its clients.