NLRB Set to Regain Quorum Following Nominee Confirmation

What Happened With the NLRB Confirmations?

The Senate confirmed Mayer and Murphy in a 53-43 vote as part of a broader group of executive nominations. Mayer received a term expiring December 16, 2029, while Murphy received a term expiring December 16, 2027. The Senate also confirmed Crystal Carey to serve a four-year term as the NLRB’s general counsel.

President Donald Trump had submitted the nominations of Mayer and Murphy in July 2025. Their eventual confirmation created a 2-1 Republican-appointed majority, with Mayer and Murphy serving alongside Prouty, a Democratic appointee. Murphy was later designated chairman of the NLRB in March 2026.

The practical importance of the vote went well beyond adding two names to an organizational chart. Without a quorum, the Board could not issue final decisions in contested unfair labor practice or union representation cases. Once Mayer and Murphy took their oaths, the agency could begin addressing a queue of disputes that had accumulated during almost a year of institutional gridlock.

Why an NLRB Quorum Matters

The NLRB is a five-member federal agency responsible for administering the National Labor Relations Act. Among other duties, it decides disputes involving union elections, collective bargaining obligations, employee organizing rights, workplace retaliation, protected concerted activity, and alleged unfair labor practices by employers or unions.

Three members generally constitute a quorum of the full Board. That requirement is not merely an office custom or a suggestion written on a sticky note. It is rooted in Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, which rejected the agency’s attempt to continue deciding cases with only two members.

The Board and the General Counsel Have Different Jobs

The distinction between the Board and the NLRB general counsel is important. Regional offices investigate charges, conduct elections, seek settlements, and issue complaints under the direction of the general counsel. The Board operates more like an appellate tribunal, reviewing administrative decisions and resolving legal questions presented by individual cases.

That means the entire agency did not close when the Board lost its quorum. Regional offices continued processing unfair labor practice charges and representation petitions. Administrative law judges could continue hearing matters, and the general counsel’s side of the agency could continue investigating and prosecuting cases. The bottleneck appeared when disputes needed final Board action.

How the NLRB Lost Its Quorum

The Board’s membership problems developed in stages. Former Chair Lauren McFerran’s term expired in December 2024. On January 27, 2025, President Trump removed Democratic member Gwynne Wilcox before the scheduled expiration of her term. The removal, unprecedented for a sitting NLRB member, left the Board with only Marvin Kaplan and David Proutyone member short of the statutory quorum.

Wilcox challenged her dismissal, triggering litigation over the president’s authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. In May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the removal to remain in effect while the legal dispute continued, although its interim order did not finally resolve every constitutional question presented by the case.

The membership shortage became even more pronounced when Kaplan’s term expired on August 27, 2025. Prouty was then the sole remaining Board member. He could participate in administrative matters, but one personno matter how impressive the coffee supplydoes not make a three-member quorum.

What Happened to Pending Cases?

Pending appeals and contested representation matters continued to accumulate. Employers challenging union election results, workers alleging unlawful retaliation, and unions seeking enforcement of bargaining rights could move through earlier stages of the NLRB process, but many disputes could not receive a final Board ruling.

The absence of decisions also reduced the agency’s ability to clarify federal labor law. Workplace disputes rarely pause while Washington sorts out appointments. Businesses continued adopting policies, unions continued organizing, and employees continued raising complaintsoften without knowing how the Board would apply existing precedent to new facts.

Who Are Scott Mayer, James Murphy, and Crystal Carey?

James Murphy

Murphy brought decades of institutional experience to the Board. He began working at the NLRB in the 1970s and served in numerous legal and advisory positions, including as counsel to multiple Board members and as chief counsel to former Chairman Kaplan. His career gives him an unusually detailed understanding of the agency’s internal procedures and decisional history. President Trump designated him chairman on March 27, 2026.

Scott Mayer

Mayer arrived with extensive management-side labor experience. Before joining the NLRB, he served as chief labor counsel for Boeing and held senior labor-relations positions with other large employers. His term runs through December 16, 2029. His background suggests close familiarity with collective bargaining, strikes, workplace investigations, and the practical compliance problems faced by large, multi-location employers.

Crystal Carey

Carey’s role differs from that of the Board members. As general counsel, she oversees the investigation and prosecution of cases through the NLRB’s regional structure. Carey previously worked as an NLRB attorney and later represented employers in private practice. Her confirmation gave the agency both an operational Board and a Senate-confirmed official directing its prosecutorial priorities.

Immediate Effects of the Restored NLRB Quorum

1. Final Decisions Can Be Issued Again

The most immediate change is straightforward: the Board can decide cases. It can review administrative law judge rulings, resolve representation disputes, rule on requests for review, and issue orders addressing violations of the National Labor Relations Act.

This does not mean every delayed case receives an instant decision. Board members must review records, legal arguments, exceptions, and proposed findings. A restored quorum reopens the road, but it does not magically remove every vehicle from the traffic jam.

2. The Case Backlog Can Be Addressed

Hundreds of matters were affected by the quorum gap, including disputes over union election victories and unfair labor practice findings. Clearing the backlog requires prioritization, internal coordination, and careful attention to cases in which delay may have changed workplace conditions.

3. Employers and Unions Gain More Legal Guidance

Board decisions do more than resolve disputes between named parties. They explain how federal labor law applies to employee handbooks, disciplinary decisions, organizing campaigns, bargaining obligations, severance agreements, social media activity, workplace investigations, and relationships involving contractors or franchisees.

A functioning Board therefore gives employers, unions, employees, and labor attorneys more information for evaluating risk. The resulting guidance may not make everyone happylabor law has never been mistaken for a group hugbut it is usually more useful than prolonged silence.

4. Representation Cases Can Reach Final Resolution

Regional directors can continue conducting many union elections without a Board quorum. However, difficult questions involving bargaining-unit scope, voter eligibility, election objections, supervisory status, or requests for review may require Board action. Restoring the quorum allows those disputes to progress toward final resolution.

Will the New Board Reverse Biden-Era Labor Policies?

The arrival of two Republican-appointed members immediately changed the Board’s ideological balance. Employers generally expect the Board to reconsider decisions that expanded worker and union protections under the Biden administration. Labor organizations, meanwhile, are watching for rulings that could narrow organizing rights, remedies, or bargaining obligations.

Areas attracting particular attention include the standard for recognizing unions, mandatory employer meetings about unionization, workplace rules affecting protected activity, expanded remedies for labor-law violations, joint-employer liability, and the test used to determine whether workers are employees or independent contractors.

However, sweeping reversals were not guaranteed merely because the Board regained a quorum. Murphy and Mayer initially formed a two-member Republican bloc with Prouty as the Democratic member. Under the Board’s established practice, overruling significant precedent generally requires three affirmative votes. The three-member panel could decide cases and potentially narrow existing holdings, but the absence of a third Republican member limited its ability to reverse major precedents outright.

The Joint-Employer Standard Offers an Early Example

In February 2026, the Board revived a narrower joint-employer standard originally adopted during Trump’s first term. Under that approach, a business generally must exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential employment terms before it is treated as a joint employer of another entity’s workers.

The change matters to franchisors, staffing clients, contractors, subcontractors, and businesses using other shared-workforce arrangements. Joint employers can be required to participate in collective bargaining and may share responsibility for certain labor-law violations. Supporters of the narrower test say it provides operational clarity, while opponents argue that it fails to reflect the indirect control common in modern business relationships. Legal challenges remain possible.

The Next Quorum Deadline Is Already Approaching

The restored quorum is not guaranteed to remain in place indefinitely. Prouty’s current term expires on August 27, 2026. Without his reappointment or the confirmation of another member, the Board would again fall to two members and lose its quorum.

To address that risk, President Trump nominated Republican management-side labor lawyer James Macy for a term expiring in 2030 and renominated Prouty for a second term expiring in 2031. The Senate HELP Committee held a confirmation hearing for both nominees on June 10, 2026. As of July 7, their nominations remained at the committee stage, with the official status showing that hearings had been held but neither nominee had been confirmed.

If Macy is confirmed, Republicans would gain a third Board vote and a 3-1 majority, at least while Prouty remains in office. That alignment could give the Board enough votes to revisit major precedents more directly. Prouty’s confirmation would preserve bipartisan representation and protect the quorum beyond August.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers should not treat the return of a quorum as permission to ignore existing NLRB precedent while waiting for future changes. Current decisions remain applicable unless they are overturned by the Board or a reviewing court.

• Review employee handbooks: Examine confidentiality, social media, workplace conduct, recording, solicitation, and disciplinary policies for language that could restrict protected group activity.
• Train front-line supervisors: Managers should understand what they may lawfully say and do during organizing activity. One poorly timed threat can transform a difficult conversation into an unfair labor practice charge.
• Audit contractor relationships: Evaluate who controls hiring, scheduling, supervision, discipline, wages, and other working conditions in staffing, franchise, and subcontracting arrangements.
• Track pending cases: Organizations with matters awaiting Board review should work with counsel to assess whether the restored quorum changes expected timing or strategy.
• Preserve documentation: Decision-makers should maintain records explaining legitimate business reasons for discipline, restructuring, layoffs, or policy enforcement.

What Workers and Unions Should Watch

Workers do not need to wait for a final Board decision before filing a charge. NLRB regional offices can receive and investigate allegations involving retaliation, surveillance, discriminatory discipline, refusal to bargain, unlawful threats, or interference with organizing activity.

Unions should closely monitor changes in case law affecting election procedures, recognition demands, bargaining orders, access rules, remedies, and employer communications. They should also prepare for the possibility that new decisions will be applied retroactively to disputes already in the pipeline.

Practical Experience: Lessons From Operating During an NLRB Quorum Gap

The long period without a functioning Board offered several practical lessons for organizations on every side of labor relations. The first is that legal uncertainty does not eliminate operational responsibility. During the quorum gap, some employers assumed that the absence of final Board decisions reduced immediate risk. In reality, charges could still be filed, witnesses could still be interviewed, records could still be requested, and regional proceedings could still move forward.

Consider a hypothetical manufacturer facing an organizing campaign while the Board lacks a quorum. Supervisors may be tempted to believe that delayed appellate review gives them greater freedom to question employees or change workplace rules. That is a dangerous conclusion. Conduct occurring during the gap remains part of the evidentiary record, and a restored Board can later review the case. Administrative delay is not legal immunity wearing a government badge.

A second lesson concerns documentation. When cases remain unresolved for months, memories fade, supervisors leave, email accounts are closed, and business systems change. Organizations that preserve interview notes, scheduling records, disciplinary histories, bargaining proposals, text messages, and policy versions are better positioned to explain their decisions when a delayed matter eventually returns to active review.

The third lesson is that labor relations cannot be managed exclusively through litigation. A company may prevail on a technical legal issue several years after a dispute began and still lose employee trust, productivity, or valuable staff in the meantime. Likewise, a union may obtain a favorable ruling only after workplace support has changed. Experienced practitioners therefore treat Board proceedings as one part of a broader workplace strategy rather than the entire strategy.

Consistency Beats Improvisation

Organizations that handled the uncertain period most effectively generally relied on consistent decision-making. They applied established policies evenly, trained supervisors before disputes emerged, investigated complaints promptly, and communicated clearly about workplace changes. By contrast, hurried reactions to organizing activity often created the most serious legal exposure.

Imagine that several employees begin discussing schedules and overtime in a private messaging group. A manager who immediately disciplines them for “negativity” may be interfering with protected concerted activity. A better response is to identify the actual conduct, determine whether employees are acting together regarding working conditions, and consult knowledgeable counsel before taking action. The legal analysis should happen before the termination meeting, not while someone is searching “NLRB protected activity” on a phone under the conference table.

Plan for Changing Precedent Without Chasing Every Headline

The return of a quorum also teaches organizations to distinguish between a political prediction and binding law. Announcements about a new Board majority can signal future policy changes, but they do not automatically erase existing precedent. Employers should identify policies that may require revision under multiple possible standards and create flexible compliance plans rather than rewriting an entire handbook after every nomination hearing.

Unions and employees can take a similar approach. They should preserve evidence, meet filing deadlines, document employer statements, and continue using established NLRB procedures even when the Board’s future direction appears uncertain. Strong factual records remain valuable regardless of which party controls the agency.

Finally, the quorum episode demonstrated how personnel decisions in Washington can affect everyday workplaces. A vacancy may sound like an inside-baseball political story, yet it can delay rulings on reinstatement, back pay, election objections, bargaining duties, and the legal status of workplace policies. For the people awaiting those decisions, quorum is not an abstract procedural word. It is the difference between having a dispute heard and having it remain in an increasingly crowded inbox.

Conclusion

The confirmations of Scott Mayer and James Murphy restored the NLRB’s ability to issue decisions after nearly a year without the three-member quorum required by federal law. Their arrival, together with Crystal Carey’s confirmation as general counsel, restarted the agency’s adjudicative machinery and established a Republican-appointed majority.

The restored quorum gives employers, workers, and unions a functioning forum for resolving labor disputes, but it also opens a new period of policy change. Questions involving union recognition, workplace rules, joint-employer liability, remedies, and organizing activity are likely to remain closely contested.

Meanwhile, the approaching expiration of David Prouty’s term means the Board’s ability to maintain a quorum depends on further Senate action. The NLRB may be back at work, but its membership story is not finished. In federal labor policy, the next chapter often begins before anyone has finished proofreading the previous one.