September 25, 2020

Volume X, Number 269

September 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Reversing Course, NLRB Determines Not to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Religious Institutions

Overruling a controversial 2014 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision, the NLRB has adopted a new test for determining whether it will exercise jurisdiction over religious institutions. Bethany College, 369 NLRB No. 98 (June 10, 2020), overruled Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB 1404 (2014) (PLU).

New Test; Great Falls

In Bethany College, the NLRB adopted an objective three-part test the federal appeals court in D.C. established in University of Great Falls v. NLRB, 278 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Under that test, if the institution (1) “holds itself out to the public as a religious institution”; (2) “is nonprofit”; and (3) “is religiously affiliated,” then the NLRB will not exercise its jurisdiction.

The NLRB stated that Great Falls correctly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979), on this issue, and the NLRB’s PLU decision was incorrect because it failed to avoid the risk that the protections in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be infringed.

Catholic Bishop of Chicago

The Supreme Court held in Catholic Bishop that the NLRB should not exercise jurisdiction over lay teachers at two Catholic high schools (one controlled by the Bishop of Chicago, the other, by a Catholic Diocese in Indiana). The Court worried that NLRB involvement in determining the terms and conditions of employment for these employees, and resolving alleged unfair labor practices, would pose “a significant risk” of infringing on First Amendment rights under the Constitution’s “Religion Clauses” (i.e., the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses). These provide, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” The Court also included this “definition” or characterization of a school operated by a church: “parochial schools involve substantial religious activity and purpose.”

Based on this, the NLRB decided on a case-by-case basis whether a self-identified religious school had a “substantial religious character” such that exercise of its jurisdiction would present a significant risk of infringing on that employer’s First Amendment religious rights.

Pacific Lutheran University

In Pacific Lutheran University, the NLRB (with then-Members Philip Miscimarra and Harry Johnson dissenting) established a stringent standard for the entity claiming exemption from NLRB jurisdiction. Under this standard, the entity must:

first demonstrate, as a threshold requirement, that First Amendment concerns are implicated by showing that it holds itself out as providing a religious educational environment. Once that threshold requirement is met, the university must then show that it holds out the petitioned-for faculty members themselves as performing a specific role in creating or maintaining the college or university’s religious educational environment, as demonstrated by its representations to current or potential students and faculty members, and the community at large.

The NLRB ultimately held that it was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over the faculty members in PLU because there was nothing in the school’s “governing documents, faculty handbook, website pages, or other material” demonstrating that the faculty “perform any religious function.” At the time, the NLRB stated that its standard provides a “better approach to protecting employees’ rights while being sensitive to First Amendment concerns.” The decision was expected to lead to widespread organizing of faculty in private religious colleges and universities.

Bethany College

In Bethany College, the NLRB held the PLU standard was incorrect, finding it was “inherently inconsistent” with Catholic Bishop. The NLRB also decided that employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “are subordinate to those enshrined in the Constitution where there is a potential conflict between the two” and that the “fundamental flaw in Pacific Lutheranwas the majority’s refusal to accept [that] reality.”


The NLRB will apply a bright line test for determining whether it will exercise jurisdiction over teachers or faculty at religious institutions, providing clarity for these organizations and their employees.

Bethany College also raises the question of whether religiously affiliated colleges and universities may withdraw recognition of unions certified as collective bargaining representatives of faculty under the PLU test.

Finally, while the NLRB will no longer assert jurisdiction, religious colleges and universities must be prepared to respond to requests for voluntary recognition of faculty unions outside the framework of the NLRA and the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume X, Number 164


About this Author

Michael Bertoncini, Jackson Lewis, labor relations attorney, employment litigation lawyer, NLRB proceedings counsel, arbitration law

Michael R. Bertoncini is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He practices labor and employment law, with a particular emphasis on labor relations, and employment law counseling and litigation.

In labor relations matters, he regularly counsels clients on the practice of positive employee relations, negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of organized clients, represents clients in labor arbitrations and National Labor Relations Board proceedings, and counsels clients with...

Howard Bloom, Jackson Lewis, labor union attorney, unfair practice investigations lawyer, employment legal counsel, bargaining law

Howard M. Bloom is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has practiced labor and employment law representing exclusively employers for more than 36 years.

Mr. Bloom counsels clients in a variety of industries on labor law issues. He trains and advises executives, managers and supervisors on union awareness and positive employee relations, and assists employers in connection with union card-signing efforts, traditional union representation and corporate campaigns, and union decertification campaigns. He also represents clients at the National Labor Relations Board in connection with bargaining unit issues, objections and challenges, as well as unfair labor practice investigations and trials. Mr. Bloom also has been the spokesperson at countless first and successor contract collective bargaining negotiations, and regularly advises on collective bargaining agreement administration issues, including grievance/arbitration issues.

Mr. Bloom has appeared before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, several U.S. District Courts, the National Labor Relations Board, the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Philip B. Rosen Jackson Lewis  Preventive Practices Lawyer & Collective Bargaining Attorney

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is a member of the firm's Board of Directors and co-leads the firm's Labor and Preventive Practices Group. He joined the firm in 1979 and served as Managing Partner of the New York City office from 1989 to 2009.

Mr. Rosen lectures extensively, conducts management training, and advises clients with respect to legislative and regulatory initiatives, corporate strategies, business ethics, social media, reorganizations and reductions-...

Jessica M. Marsh, Jackson Lewis, labor arbitrations lawyer, contract administration matters attorney
Of Counsel

Jessica M. Marsh is Of Counsel in the Minneapolis, MN, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is certified as a Labor and Employment Law Specialist through the Minnesota State Bar Association.

Ms. Marsh’s traditional labor experience includes assisting both unionized and union-free workplaces facing union organizing attempts, picketing and/or strike activity, and union election petitions. Ms. Marsh defends employers responding to unfair-labor practice charges at the NLRB Regional Offices and on exceptions to the NLRB. Ms. Marsh also represents...