The decision, issued late last year, means employers won’t have to disclose who advises them on ways to discourage union organizing. The rule would have applied to a wide range of employer activities, including purely internal advising sessions for HR professionals and managers. Essentially, any advice on how to talk about unions would have triggered a disclosure requirement. Employees, the DOL argued, should know who is crafting anti-union messages for their employer.
According to Judge Sam R. Cummings’ order, the court converted the preliminary injunction to a permanent one for the same reasons “stated in the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order entered June 27, 2016” in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Perez, et al.
He found the DOL’s revised persuader rule to be “not merely fuzzy around the edges. Rather the New Rule is defective to its core.”
The June order prohibited the DOL from implementing and enforcing its revised persuader rule on a national basis. In granting the preliminary injunction, the court had found that plaintiffs’ challenge to the new rule, which was to have gone into effect July 1, 2016, had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that the plaintiffs had shown that they would be irreparably harmed if the rule was not enjoined.