The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is in the midst of a transition that is likely to reshape how employers manage labor relations and compliance throughout 2026. Employers should prepare now for a more employer‑friendly Board, while recognizing that existing pro‑labor precedents and expanded remedies still apply until they are formally reversed or limited.
1. A Transitioning Board
Following the October 9, 2025 vote by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee to advance two of President Trump’s NLRB nominees, the Board is moving toward its first Republican‑led majority since 2021, though the transition is not yet fully complete. Periods of vacancies and litigation around Board membership have created short-term uncertainty about quorums and the pace of decision making, but the overall trajectory points to a Republican-controlled Board during 2026.
For employers, this evolving composition signals a likely reassessment of several Biden‑era rulings that expanded employee rights and employer liability. Management-side commentators widely expect a Trump‑era NLRB to prioritize rolling back precedents perceived as pro‑labor and to move more quickly once a stable Republican majority is seated.
2. Thryv, Inc. and Expanded Remedies
The NLRB’s 2022 decision in Thryv, Inc. (372 NLRB No. 22) remains a critical risk point for employers as of late 2025. Under Thryv, the Board continues to require employers found liable for unfair labor practices to make affected workers whole for a broad range of direct or foreseeable financial harms, not just traditional back pay.
While there is active debate about the scope of these remedies, the Board still applies the expanded “make‑whole” framework in its cases unless constrained by a specific court ruling. Until a Republican majority narrows Thryv or replaces it through new decisions, employers should treat consequential financial exposure—such as out‑of‑pocket expenses and related losses—as a live compliance risk.
3. Ongoing Court Conflicts Over NLRB Authority
Federal appellate courts remain divided on how far the NLRB can go in ordering expanded monetary relief, and that split persists into late 2025. At least one circuit has accepted broader make‑whole awards as consistent with the National Labor Relations Act, while another has rejected the idea that Congress authorized full, tort‑style compensatory damages.
This disagreement makes outcomes more unpredictable, because the remedies ultimately available may depend on the jurisdiction in which a case is heard. The issue remains a candidate for future U.S. Supreme Court review, which could either validate the Board’s broader approach or significantly limit its remedial authority nationwide.
4. What a Republican-Led NLRB Is Likely to Revisit
As a Republican majority consolidates, several substantive areas are widely expected to move toward more employer‑friendly interpretations:
-
Joint‑employer standards: Reconsidering recent rules that broadened when franchisors, users of staffing agencies, and other entities share NLRA liability, with a likely return to a narrower “direct and immediate control” framework.
-
Independent‑contractor classification: Revisiting decisions that tightened who qualifies as an “employee” under the NLRA, and potentially expanding the circumstances under which workers can be classified as independent contractors.
-
Union election procedures: Examining accelerated election timelines and restrictions on employer communication during organizing campaigns, with a probable move back toward procedures that allow more time for employer messaging and campaign preparation.
-
Remedies and enforcement priorities: Narrowing or replacing Thryv’s broader make‑whole remedies and revising enforcement initiatives advanced under the prior General Counsel, including policies that emphasized aggressive remedies and pro‑union organizing rules.
Because the NLRB can change course through case decisions and policy directives without waiting for Congress, employers could see meaningful doctrinal shifts emerge throughout 2026 as the new majority starts selecting and deciding test cases.
5. Practical Steps for Employers Heading into 2026
The current environment presents both opportunity and uncertainty for employers. While a more conservative NLRB may ultimately narrow liability and regulation, existing pro‑labor precedents remain enforceable until they are formally changed.
Employers should consider the following actions now:
-
Monitor Board composition and confirmations: Track final Senate confirmation of NLRB nominees and any further changes in Board membership that may affect quorums and voting blocs.
-
Follow new Board and General Counsel guidance: Watch for decisions, advice memoranda, and enforcement memoranda that signal shifts in priorities, including any efforts to scale back Thryv and related remedial doctrines.
-
Review high‑impact policies: Reevaluate policies and practices related to union organizing (including communications and access), use of staffing firms and franchise models, independent‑contractor relationships, and discipline or discharge in situations that may implicate protected concerted activity.
-
Plan for parallel regimes: Recognize that, until the Supreme Court or a nationwide rule resolves the circuit split on remedies, strategy may need to account for differing standards across jurisdictions.
By staying closely attuned to the NLRB’s evolving composition and early 2026 case law, employers can better calibrate their labor strategies, mitigate the still‑active risks under existing precedents, and position themselves to take advantage of any forthcoming shifts toward more employer‑friendly interpretations.
Explore how this potential shift fits into the bigger picture of employment law reform in Federal vs. State Labor Laws in 2026 and Navigating Labor Law Changes: Key Updates and What They Mean for You.