New England Biz Law Update
The National Labor Relations Board has decided that it will no longer accept “consent orders,” where an Administrative Law Judge resolves an unfair labor practice case based on terms offered by the respondent but objected to by both the charging party and the General Counsel.
In a case that overturns a Board decision from 2017, the NLRB said that the current practice fails to serve the goals of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it does not facilitate a truly mutual resolution of labor disputes.
The decision in Metro Health, Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio San Pedras explains that the practice of accepting consent orders seems contrary to the language of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, creates administrative difficulties and inefficiencies, and tends to interfere with the prosecutorial authority of the General Counsel.
However, the NLRB reaffirmed its longstanding practice of accepting true settlement agreements between a respondent and the General Counsel and/or a charging party instead of fully adjudicating an unfair labor practice case on the merits, where accepting the settlement would effectuate the policies of the Act.
“Because consent orders do not represent a real agreement between opposing parties to resolve a case, they do not promote labor peace in the same manner as a true settlement,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. “Our decision in Hospital Metropolitano preserves the benefits of true settlements, while eliminating a practice that has no foundation in the Act or our regulations.”
