Project 2025 Tracker / What’s done, what’s next

18. Department of Labor and Related Agencies · Minor

Increase NLRB use of Section 10(j) injunctive relief

Partially done

601 18. Department of Labor and Related Agencies

“Increase the use of 10( j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10( j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices.”

What has happened

  1. Partially done

    Acting General Counsel Cowen issued Memorandum GC 25-11, "Proceedings Under Section 10(j) of the Act", which does two of the three things the Quote asks for: it articulates when the agency intends to seek injunctive relief, naming discharges during an organizing campaign, post-certification and first-contract bargaining violations, withdrawals of recognition, successor refusals to bargain or hire, and unlawful picketing or bad-faith bargaining by unions as the categories of heightened risk; and it establishes the expeditious-consideration policy the Quote asks for, directing Regions to submit every potential 10(j) case to the Injunction Litigation Branch promptly, including cases where the Region does not recommend relief, with delay permitted "only in rare circumstances". It does not delegate the Board's authority to the General Counsel, and it also requires Regions to apply the four-factor Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney standard, which raises rather than lowers the bar.

Research log

What was searched, and what didn’t count as evidence

Research notes

  • partial under §3b’s two-object logic: two of the three named objects — articulated guidelines and an expeditious-consideration policy — are delivered by a dated Primary instrument; the Board’s delegation of 10(j) authority to the General Counsel is not, and no increase in the use of 10(j) is evidenced.
  • The memorandum’s requirement that Regions apply Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024) — the traditional four-factor equitable test — cuts against the “increase” limb of the Quote, and is recorded in the event note rather than as a contrary event.
  • GC 26-03 (2026-02-27) confirms that Cowen’s guidance “remains in effect” under the confirmed General Counsel. https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45841ea072
Action
expand
Object
NLRA Section 10(j) injunctive relief
ID
1654