NLRB head takes a turn targeting the arrangements. Prospects for holding onto your non-competes may be dimming even further. Why? National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo issued a May 30 memo all but declaring war on non-compete agreements between employers and employees. The memo joins other recent Biden administration moves hostile to non-competes, including a Federal Trade Commission rule in January proposing to eliminate nearly all such agreements (see HHHW, Vol. XXXII, No. 3). âLast year, the NLRB entered into memoranda of understanding with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justiceâs Antitrust Division, both of which have addressed the anticompetitive effects of non-compete agreements,â the NLRB notes in a release about memo GC 23-08. âNon-compete provisions are overbroad,â Abruzzo argues in the memo. âThey reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of [National Labor Relations Act] Section 7 rights, when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for based on their experience, aptitudes, and preferences as to type and location of work,â she says. And âretaining employees or protecting special investments in training employees are unlikely to ever justify an overbroad non-compete provision because U.S. law generally protects employee mobility, and employers may protect training investments by less restrictive means, for example, by offering a longevity bonus,â Abruzzo maintains. The memo singles out staff that arenât top earners. âIt is unlikely an employerâs justification would be considered reasonable in common situations where overbroad non-compete provisions are imposed on low-wage or middle-wage workers who lack access to trade secrets or other protectible interests,â Abruzzo says. This is just the latest in a number of âhighly controversialâ memos from Abruzzo, note attorneys with law firm Proskauer Rose in a post on the firmâs labor relations blog. âAbruzzoâs efforts to alter the labor and employment landscape continue,â observe attorneys Clifford Atlas, Jonathan Spitz, Richard Vitarelli, and Jonathan Siegel with law firm Jackson Lewis. But despite the broader policy changes, Abruzzoâs memo isnât the final word on the matter. The memo âis not binding precedent of the NLRB and only an explanation of the General Counselâs prosecutorial priorities,â explain attorneys Robert C. Nagle and Andrew M. MacDonald with law firm Fox Rothschild. Still, while âthe NLRB has not yet ruled on the General Counselâs theory ⌠given this very public announcement, employers relying on non-compete agreements can expect a slew of unfair labor practices challenging the agreements,â the Proskauer lawyers warn. And âif the NLRB adopts Abruzzoâs radical interpretation of the Act, it will have far-reaching implications for employers who use non-compete agreements for non-managerial employees, insofar as the NLRA covers virtually all private sector employers,â Nagle and MacDonald caution in online analysis. âUnder the Act, managers and supervisors are not considered âemployeesâ entitled to the lawâs protections,â they remind. Do this: âWhile it remains to be seen whether Abruzzoâs attack on non-competes becomes the law of the land, employers should note that policymakers and regulators are taking an increasingly tough line against the use of non-competes and consult with experienced counsel to ensure they are optimally designed to withstand legal attack,â Nagle and MacDonald advise. âEmployers, whether unionized or not, should consult with experienced labor counsel to thoroughly assess non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and severance agreements in light of Section 7 and the GCâs memo,â the Jackson Lewis attorneys urge in online analysis. And remember to check your state laws on the matter, which may limit or prohibit non-competes and similar arrangements, the experts offer. Note: A link to the six-page memo is at .