Written by Michael J Woodson and John T Hays From Eversheds Sutherland on Feb 24, 2026
On February 19, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) affirmed the dismissal of allegations that an employer had violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising improved benefits during a union campaign. The timeline of events was key for this issue. A group of employees formed a union in April 2021. The group filed a representation petition on October 25, 2021, which it withdrew on November 21. However, it filed a new petition on December 22. In September 2021, the employer had announced company-wide improvements to its existing Career Choice Program (CCP). Specifically, it increased tuition reimbursement from 80% to 100%, expanded covered programs, and reduced the required tenure from one year to 90 days. These enhancements were scheduled to take effect in January 2022 and were communicated before the union petition was filed.
The allegations at issue concerned what happened later. The employer referenced these CCP improvements during mandatory meetings in November 2021. In those meetings, managers reminded employees that CCP benefits would improve in January and highlighted these enhancements as evidence that the company “listened to associates” and invested in their development. The general counsel for the NLRB argued that these November discussions constituted unlawful promises of new benefits intended to discourage unionization. However, the Board explained that the law distinguishes between promising new benefits during a campaign (unlawful) and reminding employees of existing or previously announced benefits (lawful). Because the CCP improvements had been publicly announced two months earlier for all facilities and were not timed to union activity, the November references were deemed to be lawful reminders rather than new promises.
As a result, the Board affirmed the dismissal of the allegations that the employer had violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising improved benefits during the union campaign. The Board’s decision emphasized that there was no allegation that, or litigation over whether, the decision to enhance the CCP or the September announcement was unlawfully motivated. Without such a basis, the Board found no grounds to infer that the November remarks constituted improper inducements tied to discouraging union support. The Board also noted that employees’ lack of prior awareness of a benefit does not make an employer’s reminder of that benefit unlawful during a campaign. Therefore, the complaint allegations regarding promised improvements to the CCP were properly dismissed.
The key takeaway for employers is the reminder that it is perfectly acceptable during union campaigning to remind employees of the benefits they enjoy—and doing so remains a good practice to employ.
