On Aug. 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed James Macy and reconfirmed David Prouty as members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), giving Republicans a 3-1 working majority for the first time during President Trump’s second term. That third vote matters more than the headline suggests: under longstanding Board tradition, it takes three affirmative votes (not a bare majority of two) to overrule existing precedent. That is precisely why the 2-1 Republican Board spent most of 2026 issuing uncontroversial decisions but declining to touch the most controversial rulings issued by the NLRB during President Biden’s administration.

Critically, the Board cannot simply announce new rules from the bench. It must wait for a case presenting the right legal question to work its way up, so the reversal of precedent will likely happen unevenly, case-by-case, over the next 12-24 months rather than in one sweeping announcement.

Here are the key decisions most likely to be overturned by the current NLRB:

Cemex (Union Recognition Without an Election)

Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023) shifted the burden of filing an election petition to the employer if a union demanded recognition and created a created a framework where an employer that commits any unfair labor practice during a union campaign can be forced into a bargaining order and lose the right to a secret-ballot election entirely, effectively letting a single, minor misstep hand the union recognition outright. The new Republican majority is expected to follow the Sixth Circuit’s lead and overrule Cemex in favor of the traditional petition filing process and rule requiring a clear, specific showing that an election was so tainted it can’t produce a reliable outcome, shifting the burden back toward proof of real electoral harm rather than any technical violation.

Amazon.com Services (Captive-Audience Meetings)

In a 2024 decision that broke with roughly 75 years of settled practice, the NLRB held that mandatory “captive audience” meetings  (where employees are required, under threat of discipline, to attend employer presentations opposing unionization) violate the NLRA.  Expect the Board to simply reinstate the pre-2024 rule that mandatory attendance at such meetings is lawful, restoring employers’ primary tool for delivering their response to union organizing and messaging.

Stericycle  (Workplace Rules and Handbooks)

Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) replaced the comparatively predictable (but complex) Trump-era Boeing standard with a presumption that any workplace rule is unlawful if a “reasonable” employee who is economically dependent on the employer could read it as chilling their Section 7 rights. Even neutral, common-sense handbook language became legally suspect in practice before the Regional Directors during unfair labor practice proceedings. It is likely that the Board will revive a less stringent standard for evaluating work rules, but it is unclear if it will return to a Boeing-style categorical-balancing test, which was itself criticized because of its complexity.

McLaren Macomb (Severance Confidentiality Clauses)

McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) gutted employers’ ability to include standard confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements, treating even routine language as an unlawful restraint on employees’ rights to discuss workplace conditions. Employers should expect the Board to restore employers’ latitude to include reasonable, narrowly tailored confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, with carve-outs preserved only for core protected concerted activity.

Thryv  (Consequential Damages)

Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022) broke from nearly 90 years of practice by authorizing “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” as a make-whole remedy, opening the door to awards for credit card interest, late fees, and even lost homes or cars supposedly tied to an unfair labor practice.  The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have already rejected Thryv-style damages as exceeding the Board’s statutory authority, while the Ninth Circuit upheld them, creating a live circuit split that the Supreme Court has so far declined to resolve.

Lion Elastomers (Employee Outbursts During Protected Activity)

Lion Elastomers LLC, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) revived setting-specific tests that can preserve NLRA protection for employees’ profane, abusive, or discriminatory conduct occurring during otherwise protected activity. Employers can expect restoration of the General Motors’ uniform causation test, allowing employers to enforce neutral conduct standards when they would impose the same discipline outside the protected setting.

Endurance (Employer Unilateral Changes)

Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024) discarded “contract coverage” and requires a clear and unmistakable union waiver before an employer may rely on a CBA to make a unilateral change. It is likely that the Board will restore MV Transportation, which asks whether the agreement’s ordinary language places the employer’s action within the scope of a contractual grant of authority.

When Can Employers Expect Change?

The agency’s current backlog and the time required to bring suitable cases to decision mean the shift in these cases will be measured in months, not days. And after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright opinion, appellate courts will independently test rather than give substantial deference to the Board’s statutory reasoning. Member Prouty’s continued presence also ensures that major reversals will likely arrive with a developed dissent. Employers should distinguish current law from a case that is merely primed for reversal, and a case primed for reversal from a rule that has actually changed. Member Macy’s confirmation dramatically shortens the distance between those categories, but it does not collapse them.

Consult Taft’s Employment and Labor Relations attorneys for up-to-date guidance on this and other NLRB developments.