By: Kamran Mirrafati and John T. Ayers-Mann
Seyfarth Synopsis: Newly issued guidance from the NLRB encourages efficient resolution of labor disputes, giving employers more flexibility in crafting resolutions to reach practical compromises in appropriate cases. The memorandum also effectuates a limitation of the Board’s Thryv, Inc. decision, such that losses indirectly caused by an unfair labor practice charge are not to be included in settlements where the causal link to the alleged violation is not sufficiently clear.
On May 16, 2025, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued GC Memorandum 25-06 in order to re-define how remedial relief should be approached in settlements of Unfair Labor Practice charges (ULPs). The memorandum provides an encouraging look into the NLRB’s philosophy on settlements moving forward— which is a marked departure from the former General Counsel’s approach.
The memorandum confirms that settlements continue to be the backbone of resolving ULPs and that the vast majority of cases settle. However, the Acting General Counsel noted that, with respect to ULPs where it found merit, 99.3% of cases settled in 2019 as compared to a slightly reduced settlement percentage of 96.3% in 2024. The memorandum encourages Regions to continue pursuing settlements as a cost-saving tool.
While the scope of remedies should continue to match the relief the NLRB would typically order, unless otherwise approved by the Divisions of Operations-Management and Advice (when appropriate), the memorandum provides helpful guidance to the Regions on what to include (and avoid) in settlement agreements:
- Default language, which outlines consequences for noncompliance, is encouraged, but not mandatory.
- Non-admissions clauses are allowed, particularly in the early stages of investigation, but are off the table for repeat violators absent extraordinary circumstances.
- Make-whole relief is still a cornerstone for the agency, but Regions can approve settlements offering less than full recovery in appropriate cases where the nature of the violations, risks of litigation, and prompt resolution of the matter warrant such settlement.
The memorandum further addresses the impact of the Board’s Thryv, Inc. 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), reversed as to the merits on appeal 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024), decision, which broadened the NLRB’s remedial scope. There, the Board called for employers to cover all “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” caused by unfair labor practices. Since Thryv did not spell out a clear standard, the memorandum explained that harms should be compensable in settlements only when the “causal link” to the ULP is “sufficiently clear.”
In summary, GC Memorandum 25-06 provides useful guidance for employers and lays out the Region’s priorities when settling matters. Importantly, it provides helpful limitations on the holding of Thryv, Inc. in the settlement context.
#Latest #NLRB #Guidance #Helps #Employers #Resolve #Disputes