On February 14, 2025, National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel William Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, rescinding more than a dozen policy memos issued by his predecessor. Cowen cited an unsustainable backlog of cases as the primary motivation for the rescission. Cowen also signaled that he plans to publish new guidance to replace some of the rescinded memos. Others may be abandoned altogether.

The rescission memo is among the first public steps Cowen has taken since assuming the role in early February. It suggests that he plans to chart a different course for some of the most visible and controversial issues in labor law today.

What is a general counsel (GC) memo?

GC memos are nonbinding guidance issued directly by the Board’s general counsel. General counsels often use them to instruct and inform field staff about the general counsel’s priorities. They also inform employers, unions, and workers how the general counsel plans to deal with novel or controversial issues.

The Board’s prior general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, was particularly active in publishing memoranda. Many of these memoranda were criticized as shifting Board policy beyond existing law. For example, GC Memorandum 21-08 dealt with the agency’s prior stance on what rights student-athletes enjoy under the National Labor Relations Act. Likewise, GC Memorandum 24-06 addressed the Board’s prior position on universities and colleges’ disclosure obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

What does this new rescission memo mean?

The rescission memo suggests that Cowen has different policy priorities. For example, he rescinded the two memos discussed above dealing with student-athletes and student privacy rights. Those rescissions could indicate a move away from student organizing generally. Similarly, the rescission memo withdraws GC Memoranda 22-06 and 24-04, which addressed the agency’s prior policy shift towards expanding the remedies both in general and in settlements of pending charges before the agency in particular. Further still, it rescinded GC Memoranda 23-05 and 23-08, which addressed the interplay between non-compete agreements and the NLRA, as well as the agency’s controversial McLaren Macomb decision. It also rescinded the controversial GC Memorandum 22-04, which addressed mandatory work meetings to discuss labor issues. The rescinded memo argued that those kinds of meetings were often improper – a position the Board itself later endorsed in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024).  

In all, the rescinded memoranda include:

• GC 21-02 Rescission of Certain General Counsel Memoranda
• GC 21-03 Effectuation of the National Labor Relations Act Through Vigorous Enforcement of the Mutual Aid or Protection and Inherently Concerted Doctrines
• GC 21-04 Mandatory Submissions to Advice
• GC 21-08 Statutory Rights of Players at Academic Institutions (Student-Athletes) Under the National Labor Relations Act
• GC 22-06 Update on Efforts to Secure Full Remedies in Settlements (Revised Attachment)
• GC 23-02 Electronic Monitoring and Algorithmic Management of Employees Interfering with the Exercise of Section 7 Rights
• GC 23-04 Status Update on Advice Submissions Pursuant to GC Memo 21-04
• GC 23-05 Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the McLaren Macomb Decision
• GC 23-08 Non-Compete Agreements that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
• GC 24-04 Securing Full Remedies for All Victims of Unlawful Conduct
• GC 24-05 Section 10(j) Injunctive Relief and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney
• GC 24-06 Clarifying Universities’ and Colleges’ Disclosure Obligations under the National Labor Relations Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
• GC 24-06 Attachment
• GC 25-01 Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
• GC 25-02 Ensuring Settlement Agreements Adequately Address the Public Rights at Issue in the Underlying Unfair Labor Practice Allegations
• GC 21-01 Guidance on the Propriety of Mail Ballot Elections, pursuant to Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020)
• GC 22-04 The Right to Refrain from Captive Audience and other Mandatory Meetings
• GC 23-03 Delegation to Regional Directors of Section 102.118 Authorization Regarding Record Requests from Federal, State, and Local Worker and Consumer Protection Agencies

In addition, Acting GC Cowen rescinded several additional memoranda pending further guidance on those topics, signaling that additional guidance may be forthcoming from this administration. Those memoranda include:

• GC 21-05 Utilization of Section 10(j) Proceedings
• GC 21-06 Seeking Full Remedies
• GC 21-07 Full Remedies in Settlement Agreements
• GC 22-01 Ensuring Rights and Remedies for Immigrant Workers Under the NLRA
• GC 22-02 Seeking 10(j) Injunctions in Response to Unlawful Threats or Other Coercion During Union Organizing Campaigns
• GC 22-03 Inter-agency Coordination
• GC 22-05 Goals for Initial Unfair Labor Practice Investigations
• GC 23-01 Settling the Section 10(j) Aspect of Cases Warranting Interim Relief
• GC 23-07 Procedures for Seeking Compliance with and Enforcement of Board Orders
• GC 24-01 (Revised) Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the Board’s Decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC
• GC 25-03 New Processes for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Casehandling
• GC 25-04 Harmonization of the NLRA and EEO Laws

What happens now?

In addition to all the rescissions, Acting GC Cowen indicated he would be restoring prior guidance set forth in GC Memorandum 18-01, which had previously delegated authority to authorize certain disclosures by the agency to the Division of Legal Counsel, as opposed to Regional Directors as had been previously authorized under the now rescinded GC Memorandum 23-03.

The directive from the GC to all Board regions is likely to lead to a re-examination over time of the some of the most far-reaching and precedent-setting decisions from the GC's predecessor. But change typically happens slowly, as cases still must work their way through the Board’s administrative process. And the current Board may be slow to address new issues, as it currently has only two members and so lacks a quorum.  

Nonetheless, the GC's directive is important. It suggests an intention to make major policy changes at the NLRB. We will continue to monitor NLRB developments closely.