Supreme Court clarifies standard for injunctions under NLRA

On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-to-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, which clarified the legal standard—and made it uniform nationwide—when federal courts are asked to grant a preliminary injunction, or court order, under §10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) based on allegations of unfair labor practices. Let’s take a closer look.

Seeking preliminary injunctions

NLRA §10(j) provides the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) general counsel with a powerful remedy while administrative proceedings over unfair labor practice allegations are pending. Specifically, the NLRB’s prosecutors may seek a preliminary injunction to reinstate allegedly unlawfully discharged employees or to prohibit alleged changes to working conditions motivated by unlawful animus against union activity before any actual findings of fact or order are issued.

The NLRB can seek this temporary remedy to preserve what it views as the proper status quo in the relationship between a company, its employees, and a union during an organizing campaign and in other contexts by petitioning a federal court “to grant . . . such temporary relief . . . as it deems just and proper.”

The Board traditionally pursues this temporary remedy so that the remedial purpose of the much longer administrative law process under §§10(b),(c) isn’t frustrated (and can run its course, often taking many months if not years).