Glitches in New NLRB Docketing System Lead to Case Dismissals

Costly missteps in the National Labor Relations Board’s new intake protocol are emerging, as union attorneys report instances where regional offices have thrown out unfair labor practice charges based on technicalities or their own errors.

Since the agency changed its intake protocol at the end of 2025, regional NLRB offices have cited charging parties’ failure to cooperate when dismissing cases for reasons like not filling out questionnaires with the same information they already submitted to the agency—something a top agency official said shouldn’t happen—or missing a deadline the agency didn’t notice.

While some lawyers said they were able to persuade regional officials to reinstate the charges, the dismissals create concern that workers or unions without legal counsel could effectively lose the protection of federal labor law because of bureaucratic problems with the agency’s docketing system.

“If you don’t have aggressive representation, you’re screwed,” said Seth Goldstein of Goldstein & Singla PLLC.

Goldstein said he spent nearly two hours researching and writing a letter to convince the NLRB’s Boston regional office to revive a charge alleging an unlawful termination of a Trader Joe’s East worker. The region had tossed it for noncooperation because Goldstein didn’t meet the two-week deadline for submitting initial information after filing the charge.

But Goldstein said he didn’t receive the initial docketing letter advising him of that deadline—or any communication from the agency about the charge—until he got an email dismissing the charge.

Deadline Enforcement

The NLRB general counsel’s office rolled out the new docketing protocol in late December, saying it was necessary to deal with the growing backlog of cases and staffing shortages in the regions.

The primary change involves regional offices sending new charges to unassigned case lists they each maintain, instead of assigning them to individual board agents right off the bat. The memo introducing the new system emphasized that charging parties are responsible for submitting information to support their allegations, such as a timeline of events and a list of witnesses, within two weeks or face dismissal for noncooperation.

About a month after announcing the new protocol, the NLRB issued a press release insisting there was nothing new about the deadline for providing initial information. “A two-week response period has been standard practice for many years,” the agency said.

But that deadline wasn’t consistently applied across the country, with variations between regional offices and among individual board agents overseeing cases, according to union lawyers and NLRB employees. The new protocol has brought nationwide uniformity and strict enforcement.

“It seems like there’s been a pretty abrupt crackdown,” said Gabe Frumkin, an attorney with Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP.

‘That’s Not Good’

The NLRB official who ushered in the changes expressed surprise and then disapproval when a union lawyer told him about charges being thrown out on technicalities during his appearance at an American Bar Association conference in March.

Michaela Posner of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld described instances of her and her colleagues submitting required information on firm letterhead along with charges, only to have regional offices dismiss the charges because they didn’t include the same information in agency questionnaires.

Acting Associate General Counsel William Cowen then asked, “Did that really happen?” Posner confirmed that it had.

“That’s not good,” replied Cowen, who authored the memo introducing the new policy while he was acting general counsel.

That kind of dismissal “should not happen,” he said. “If you submitted evidence, it should be taken into account.”

An NLRB spokesperson declined to comment.

Benefits for Board Agents

Despite apparent problems with the new docketing system for charging parties detailed by four union attorneys, the changes have been generally well received by NLRB regional employees.

New cases going to the unassigned case list instead of piling on top of already too-heavy caseloads has had real benefits, according to board agents who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

After a year of significant attrition, just two of the agency’s 26 regional offices had enough staff to handle their workloads, according to personnel information reviewed by Bloomberg Law.

The unassigned case list mostly shields board agents from having to deal with new charging parties who want updates on their cases, they said. It also keeps the slate of work at a level that allows for actually remembering what each case is about, a board agent said.

Regional staffers said the protocol has psychological benefits as well, as they don’t feel like they’re getting more underwater with every passing day as they’re assigned cases faster than they can investigate them.

One board agent said that the new intake system has provided them enough relief from the constant assignment of cases to give further hope that a long-term career at the agency is possible.