The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel, Crystal S. Carey, recently signaled important shifts in labor policy under the second Trump administration. On February 27, 2026, Carey issued Memorandum GC 26-03, outlining her priorities as she leads the agency. The memo clarifies what issues may be priorities, sets new parameters around remedies, and establishes a settlement-friendly approach to enforcement. This article will highlight some key developments and discuss what they mean for employers.
President Biden’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, pursued an aggressive agenda for the NLRB, including efforts to obtain enhanced remedies and advance an expansive reading of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) generally. Shortly after President Trump was inaugurated, he replaced Abruzzo with Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen; in a February 2025 memorandum, Memorandum GC 25-05, Cowen rescinded many Abruzzo-era, labor-friendly memos. (Letitia Silas and Ashley Mitchell covered Cowen’s memo shortly after it was issued last year.)
President Trump nominated Carey in March 2025. She was confirmed by the Senate on December 18, 2025, and sworn in on January 7, 2026. She is already moving to focus the agency’s priorities.
Withdrawing challenges to certain Board decisions
Carey’s memo highlights three Board decisions the GC will no longer be seeking to overturn:
-
- Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB No. 107 (1970), involving remedial relief for refusal to bargain;
- Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020), involving an employer’s right to discipline employees, before bargaining, once a collective-bargaining relationship begins but before an agreement is in place; and
- Caesars Entertainment, 368 NLRB No. 143 (2019), involving an employer’s right to restrict the use of its email system.
The GC is reviewing all pending matters, allegations, and litigation positions to ensure consistency with this policy. Employers facing investigations or ULP charges implicating these issues should ensure that this new policy is correctly applied to them.
Expanding resolution through settlement
Carey also stated that the NLRB “advocates for the resolution of cases through settlement rather than litigation whenever feasible,” and she directed regions to approve informal settlements, or withdrawal requests based on non-NLRB settlements, as long as the settlement terms are lawful. This approach will be applied notwithstanding the nature of the allegations. This change should make it easier to have settlement agreements approved.
Significantly, Carey also directed that “enhanced remedies”—things like “notice readings, apology letters, or nationwide postings”—should not be routinely included in either settlement agreements or complaints. Instead, enhanced remedies will be reserved for “egregious and recidivist situations[.]” This change, too, should make it much easier to reach settlements, by taking some of the often most contentious and challenging matters off the table.
Carey also stated that all pending matters are being reviewed to identify where enhanced remedies have been sought, and requests for enhanced remedies will be rescinded in accordance with the new guidance. Employers who were facing requests for enhanced remedies should ensure that such requests are withdrawn if appropriate for their circumstances.
Establishing a targeted approach in rules-only cases
Carey has also set a more targeted approach to handling rules-only matters—matters where the alleged ULPs consist only of an employer’s maintaining allegedly unlawful rules, even if there is no evidence that the rules have been enforced or have affected employees. Carey found that it is not an efficient use of the agency’s resources to pursue those cases, will generally no longer do so (with the exception of “clear, facial violations—such as outright bans on discussing wages among employees”). The GC emphasized that rules cases require a “nuanced approach” and that only cases involving “rules with obvious, unjustifiable restrictions are pursued further.”
Carey directed regions to “promptly seek settlement” in pending rules-only cases, and charged parties should be able to settle their cases by agreeing to modify or rescind the challenged rule.
This enforcement approach is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for employers; unlawful rules are unlawful, and employers should carefully consider whether they are in compliance with applicable law when developing and enforcing their workplace rules.
Streamlining investigations by requiring evidence of alleged ULPs
Carey has also streamlined the process for investigating a charging party’s allegations. The investigator should not request evidence from a charged party until they have determined that the charging party’s evidence “suggests a prima facie case.” Charged parties may provide information if they wish, and Carey notes that a charged party’s information may actually help resolve the case more quickly.
Similarly, Carey emphasized that requests for documents should be specific and targeted to the allegations from the charge—for example, not requesting entire handbooks where one rule is at issue. And Carey stated that not all cases are appropriate for section 10(j) injunctions—which allow the NLRB to seek temporary injunctions from federal district courts—confirming that the GC will focus on efficient, targeted investigation where its resources can make an impact.
If an employer is the subject of a charge, the employer should carefully consider the charge. If the charge seems likely to succeed in suggesting a prima facie case, the employer should determine when to provide its own information to the investigator; depending on the circumstances, providing information early could provide a fuller context and potentially result in a dismissal or a favorable settlement without protracted investigation or litigation.
Overall, Carey’s memo reiterates that the NLRB will follow the general path laid out last year. Employers can expect more efficient, targeted investigations, with less aggressive pursuit of enhanced remedies and more opportunities for favorable settlements. It is also clear that the GC will pursue meritorious charges, so as always, employers must remain vigilant and proactively seek to remain in compliance.