In enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (Act), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) exercises two principal functions: it supervises and conducts union representation elections through which employees decide whether be represented by a union, as well as decides cases involving alleged violations of the Act, referred to as unfair labor practice charges (ULPs).

The NLRB’s General Counsel (GC) is the agency’s chief prosecutor. The GC sets the Board’s adjudicatory agenda by determining which ULP cases are presented to the NLRB for decision. The GC does so by not only deploying her labor policy agenda and objectives, but by also directing the processes by which ULP cases are investigated and ultimately litigated.

We’ve blogged extensively about the significant and far-reaching actions taken by now-former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo to advance her pro-union vision of how the Act should be applied and enforced. Under her leadership, which was during the Biden Administration, NLRB investigative priorities were expanded and ULP cases were presented to an equally pro-union Democrat-appointee majority NLRB that willingly moved former GC Abruzzo’s agenda forward, seizing the opportunity provided by her to profoundly tilt the field in favor of unions.

Thankfully for employers, times have changed. Ms. Abruzzo was fired by President Trump immediately after his inauguration in January 2024. Following considerable delays, including due to the lengthy government shutdown in late 2025, Crystal Carey was sworn in as the NLRB’s new GC in January 2026.

It has become tradition that with a change in GC, the new GC rescinds some of the predecessor GC’s guidance memorandum. These memorandum – known unsurprisingly as “GC Memos” – typically address both the GC’s priorities in terms of issues to bring before the NLRB for decision (and thereby offer the Board an opportunity to revisit prior decisions the new GC may believe have been wrongly decided) as well as modifications to NLRB procedures in the field, including with regard to how ULP charges are investigated.

On February 27, 2026, GC Carey issued GC Memo 26-03, entitled “Case Handling Guidance.” It represents a substantial change from how things were done under the previous GC, as it unwinds some of the overtly pro-union priorities and practices that were the legacy of former GC Abruzzo’s tenure.

The highlights of GC Memo 26-03 are as follows.

  • A hallmark of the prior GC ‘s tenure was the aggressive prosecution of ULPs alleging as unlawful the mere maintenance of allegedly overbroad employer rules (as opposed to the enforcement of them), including those typically found in an employer’s employee handbook. GC Memo 26-03 offers very welcome, and sensible, changes to NLRB practice concerning these types of cases.
    • First, the memo explains that pursuing litigation of ULP allegations that relate only to the mere existence of an allegedly unlawful employer rule, and not enforcement of the rule, is not an efficient use of scarce NLRB resources. Thus, the memo directs that any pending cases of this nature should be settled, either by the employer agreeing to rescind or change the rule followed by withdrawal or dismissal of the ULP charge, or if the employer declines to rescind or change the rule, though a merits dismissal (which is a form of dismissal that reflects that the ULP charge may have merit but that the agency is not proceeding because of other considerations).
    • Second, regarding future maintenance-of-rules cases, the memo instructs NLRB investigators to focus on those cases that involve rules that impermissibly restrict core rights under the Act – such as a rule banning employees from discussing their wages – giving appropriate consideration to the nature of the employer’s business and any legitimate business justifications offered by the employer for the rule.
  • GC Memo 26-03 also sets forth welcome adjustments to how NLRB investigators are to conduct their investigation of ULP charges.
    • Investigators now should request evidence from the charged party only after the party filing the ULP charge has presented its evidence and then only if that evidence suggests that a violation of the Act may have occurred.
    • Investigators requesting information from parties alleged to have engaged in unfair labor practices are directed to provide adequate information to the charged party to facilitate a meaningful response. This means the letter requesting evidence from the charged party should not simply parrot back the charge allegations, but should provide a reasonably detailed summary of the evidence provided by the party filing the ULP charge.
    • Related to the issue discussed above concerning how the prior GC focused on going after employer rules even if those rules were not shown to have any impact on employee rights, it was common practice for NLRB investigators to insist that employers provide not only the particular rule at issue, but the employer’s entire employee handbook. This then frequently lead to the former GC alleging other rules, not challenged in the original ULP charge, to be unlawful. GC Memo 26-03 puts a stop to that overreach by explaining that requests for entire employee handbooks should be avoided unless directly pertinent to the allegations in the ULP charge, specifically directing that “[i]f a single rule is alleged to have violated the Act, only that particular rule should be requested.”
    • Finally, it had become common practice in the past four years for unions to make a request in even the most benign ULP charges for what is referred to as “10(j) relief,” a reference to Section 10(j) of the Act, which permits the GC to seek and obtain an injunction prohibiting an employer from engaging in certain conduct (or to take affirmative action, such as reinstating an employee) while a ULP case is being litigated before the Board. Section 10(j) injunctions are exceptional remedies, rarely sought by the NLRB. Yet it had become practice for NLRB investigators to insist that employers respond to union requests for 10(j) relief without regard to the seriousness of the ULP alleged. GC Memo 26-03 clarifies that “[n]ot every case is appropriate for 10(j) and inquiries about a parties’ stance on Section 10(j) relief should be made only when an initial review of the charging party’s materials suggest” that a request for a response concerning 10(j) relief may be necessary.
  • GC Memo 26-03 confirms that the GC Carey will not seek to have the Board revisit certain issues targeted by her predecessor. These include cases that currently prohibit imposing financial penalties on employers for a union’s “lost opportunity to bargain” when the employer chooses to pursue an appeal of a NLRB-issued bargaining order, holding that an employer is not required to bargain with a union prior to imposing serious discipline on a represented employee, and confirming that employers can restrict employees from using employer-provided communications platforms (e.g. email and instant messaging) for union organizing or other non-work purposes.
  • Prior GC policy required employers to provide full remedies for alleged ULPs as a condition of any ULP case settlement, essentially requiring employer capitulation rather than compromise. GC Memo 26-03 reverts to long-standing NLRB practice endorsing a more flexible approach to settlement. It also clarifies that enhanced remedies, such as nationwide notice postings, reading of settlement notices by a management official to assembled employees and apology letters, all aggressively sought by former GC Abruzzo, should be reserved for exceptional cases involving egregious and recidivist situations, and therefore should not be part of a routine settlement.

Taken together, these changes will relieve employers from some of the aggressive tactics that had become a tiresome aspect of responding to ULP charges under the prior GC’s regime, as well as signal a reasonable and ultimately more sensible approach to key aspects of the GC’s efforts to enforce the Act.