Perspectives

Understanding the NLRB’s Position on Stay-or-Pay Provisions

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, recently issued a memo declaring that many stay-or-play provisions in employment contracts, which often take the form of Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs), likely violate workers’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). These provisions, designed to recoup costs like training or sign-on bonuses if an employee leaves their job within a specified period, have long been used by companies- but are now under heightened scrutiny.

Why Stay-or-Pay Provisions Violate Section 7 Rights

At the heart of the issues is the way these provisions restrict employee mobility. TRAPs make it financially difficult for employees to resign, effectively coercing them into staying in roles they might otherwise leave. This can discourage employees from engaging in activities protected under Section 7, such as organizing, advocating for improved working conditions, or seeking new employment.

The NLRB’s General Counsel argues that these provisions interfere with worker’s rights by increasing the fear of job loss if they engage in protected concerted activities. Employees might be reluctant to quit or challenge workplace conditions if doing so would trigger a significant financial penalty, making it harder for them to exercise their legal rights.

Types of Stay-or-Pay Agreements Covered

The memo covers a wide range of provisions beyond traditional TRAPs, including:

• Educational reimbursement or repayment agreements
• Quit fees or liquidated damages clauses
• Sign-on bonuses or relocation stipends tied to a mandatory stay period

These provisions typically require employees to pay back costs or face penalties if they leave their job voluntarily or are terminated for reasons other than cause within a certain period.

What is Still Permissible?

The NLRB memo does not ban all forms of stay-or-pay agreements. Employers can still use repayment provisions, but they must be narrowly tailored to avoid interfering with Section 7 rights. Specifically, agreements are more likely to be considered lawful if they meet the following criteria:

1. Voluntarily Entered: Employees must freely choose to enter the agreement, with no undue financial or employment consequences if they decline. For instance, repayment terms tied to optional training or benefits, like elective educational opportunities, are generally permissible.
2. Reasonable and Specific Repayment Amount: The repayment amount must reflect the actual cost to the employer for the benefit provided. If the amount is higher than the actual cost, the provision is likely intended to restrict employee mobility, making it unlawful. Further, the amount of the repayment must be clearly communicated to the employee at the time the agreement is entered into.
3. Reasonable Stay Period: The length o f the required stay should be proportional to the benefit. For example, if the employer provides a costly relocation stipend, the stay period might reasonably be longer than than it is for less expensive benefits, like a sign-on bonus.
4. No Repayment if Terminated with Cause: Employees should not be required to repay amounts if they are terminated without cause. Otherwise, they might fear engaging in protected activities, worrying they could be fired and forced to pay.

60-Day Deadline to Modify Nonconforming Agreements

Employers currently using TRAPs or other stay-or-pay provisions should note that they have a 60-day window from the memo’s issuance to modify any nonconforming agreements. This essentially creates a December, 6, 2024, deadline to comply. Failure to do so could result in enforcement action by the NLRB, including the rescission of the provisions and potential financial liability for any financial harm caused to employees. It is critical for HR professionals and management to promptly review and revise any existing agreements to ensure compliance with the new guidance.

What this Means for Employers

Employers should carefully review their contracts and policies involving TRAPs or other stay-or-pay provisions. While the goal of retaining talent is valid, these provisions cannot come at at the cost of violating worker’s rights. HR teams and company management should ensure that any stay-or-pay provisions comply with the criteria stated above. Businesses should take note of these developments and ensure their policies are compliant within the 60-day window, focusing on creating retention strategies that respect employees’ legal rights and promote a healthy, motived workforce.

In light of these developments, it’s essential for employers to stay ahead of compliance issues by reviewing their stay-or-pay provisions and ensuring they align with the NLRB’s guidance. By taking proactive steps to modify agreements and protect workers’ rights, businesses can mitigate risks and foster a positive workplace culture. For tailored advice and support in navigating these changes, we recommend reaching out to your trusted legal advisor or contacting the Employment and Labor team at Wagner, Falconer & Judd to ensure your policies are fully compliant and designed to protect both your company and its employees.