The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction against the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Final Rule, which sought to significantly alter the interpretation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) “Persuader Rule.” The court characterized the DOL’s new interpretation as “defective to its core.” This Final Rule, originally published on March 24, 2016, aimed to expand the scope of reporting requirements for employers and their consultants involved in activities intended to persuade employees regarding their unionization rights.
The new regulations would have imposed stringent, regular disclosure requirements, potentially leading to serious criminal penalties, on a much broader range of individuals and entities. Previously, disclosures were primarily required only for consultants who engaged in direct contact with employees to persuade them about union matters. However, the revised rule intended to mandate reporting from:
- Lawyers
- Consultants
- Advisers
- Website developers
- Public relations (P.R.) firms
- Pollsters
- Many others whose activities involved generating information that might ultimately reach employees and influence their decision on whether or not to sign union cards.
Critics argued that this expansion of the rule would not only expose a wider array of persons to potential “we-know-where-you-live” intimidation pressure and create numerous new tripwires for damaging liability, but also severely imperil the attorney-client privilege. Of particular concern was a provision within the rule demanding that attorneys disclose relationships with other clients as part of the reporting process. This injunction effectively halts the implementation of these expanded disclosure requirements.
