NLRB Guidance on Unionized Employer Bargaining Obligations when implementing OSHA’s ETS to Protect Workers from Coronavirus

November 19, 2021

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has released guidance on unionized employers’ bargaining obligations when implementing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (ETS). The ETS, if put into effect, would require employers with 100 or more employees to either institute a vaccine mandate or implement a testing program. The NLRB guidance advised that unionized employers must bargain over the latitude provided to employers by the ETS in making discretionary decisions for implementation of the mandate or testing program. Additionally, the guidance dictated that unionized employees should bargain over the potential effects of the ETS on the terms and conditions of employment and consequences for employees who fail to comply.


This guidance comes despite the November 16 announcement by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that it was suspending implementation of the ETS. This announcement comes as a response to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Order that ordered a pause on implementation of the ETS in light of pending litigation. In total, there were 34 petitions filed in 12 different circuit courts which sought review of the OSHA rule. In accordance with procedure, the cases were consolidated and a drawing selected the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the challenges as a consolidated case. The Sixth Circuit will have the authority to modify or strike down the Fifth Circuit’s Order. It is expected that the United States Supreme Court will likely have the final say on this matter.


If you have questions about OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

June 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.