NLRB Dismisses 67.4% of Worker Charges as Trump-Era Rule Changes Lift Union Case Rejections
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jul 1
NLRB Dismisses 67.4% of Worker Charges as Trump-Era Rule Changes Lift Union Case Rejections
2 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jul 1
Summary
34.7% of union unfair-labor-practice charges and 67.4% of worker charges were dismissed by the NLRB from January 2025 to April 29, 2026, up 14.2% and 10.7% from 2024, according to a Center for American Progress analysis.
February 2026 guidance from Trump-appointed General Counsel Crystal Carey pushed settlements over litigation, while December 2025 intake rules required substantial supporting evidence within two weeks, changes the analysis said made dismissals easier.
23% staffing shortages, about 150 departures in 2025 against just eight hires, and docketing glitches have also contributed to thrown-out cases and growing backlogs; the board additionally lacked a quorum for 345 days after Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox.
30% fewer union election filings in 2025 and the administration's effort to cancel collective bargaining agreements for more than 1 million federal workers point to broader pressure on organized labor as the NLRB's enforcement role weakens.
How do new evidence rules and settlement policies change the odds for workers filing labor complaints?
With constitutional challenges looming, what is the long-term future for the NLRB's enforcement power?
How will the expected reversal of key labor precedents impact company policies and union relations?
1,000 NLRB Case Dismissals Signal Major Policy Shift: What Workers and Unions Need to Know in 2025–2026
Overview
In September 2025, the NLRB dismissed a large number of old unfair labor practice cases, mainly those involving bargaining disputes, following similar actions in July and August. These September cases were much older than those dismissed earlier, showing a deliberate effort to clear long-standing backlogs. As a result, many disputes are no longer active within the NLRB process. This move reflects broader administrative changes that began during the Trump administration, signaling a shift in how the Board manages its caseload and responds to ongoing legal and political pressures.