NLRB GC 26-03 shifts enforcement priorities, raising oversight for Dollar General

NLRB General Counsel Crystal S. Carey issued GC Memorandum 26-03 on Feb. 27, 2026, instructing Regional Offices to prioritize a narrower slate of unfair labor practice matters, require charging parties to submit supporting evidence within two weeks of filing, and limit formal investigative demands until a prima facie showing exists. The NLRB press release said the memo directs Regions to "focus their efforts on investigating priority cases and protecting the right of free association," and Carey added, “As we move forward with this new guidance, my office is committed to providing clear and actionable direction for Regional offices to judiciously securing the rights of all American workers.”

The memorandum introduces two concrete procedural shifts that affect employers and charging parties. Charging parties must present evidence within two weeks, and board agents may not issue a formal investigative demand or EAJA letter to an employer until the agent determines the submitted evidence supports a prima facie case. Miller Canfield described the prima facie threshold as "a notable procedural protection for employers" and said the change builds on earlier guidance GC 26-01 and GC 26-02.

GC 26-03 also reins in the routine use of broad remedies that had become common in recent years. The memo states that "enhanced remedies . . . should not be routinely included in settlement agreements or complaints," and Miller Canfield lists examples such as notice readings, public apology letters, and nationwide posting requirements that the new guidance limits to genuinely egregious or recidivist situations. The firm reported the GC's office is reviewing pending matters to rescind enhanced remedy requests that do not meet the elevated standard.

Regional Office priorities will shift away from policing vague handbook rules and toward clear, facial violations and demonstrable harms. Labor Relations Update said Regions are instructed to prioritize rules that are "facially unlawful" and gave the example of an outright ban on discussing wages as a clear facial violation. The update advised Regions should refrain from invalidating workplace rules solely on vagueness or ambiguity and should consider industry context and business justifications; where there is no evidence a rule was enforced or had an "actual" impact on employees, the guidance counsels seeking narrow settlements or modifications.

The memo appears amid a broader agency reset. HR Law Watch noted the NLRB completed appointments of two Board members and a new General Counsel in December 2025, and cited GC 26-02 issued Jan. 28, 2026, in which Carey framed addressing the backlog as a top priority. HR Law Watch quoted that earlier memo: “For too long we have been stuck in a cycle where justice to all parties is delayed in an effort to overturn precedent, overstep the boundaries of the National Labor Relations Act, restrict the rights of employees to freely obtain information and make informed decisions about representation, and interfere with the ability of parties to freely enter into various types of otherwise lawful employment-related agreements and settlements.”

Legal commentators say the changes have practical importance for employers and HR teams. Miller Canfield urged that employers "should take note" because the enforcement posture has materially changed, and Employment Law Worldview described the memo as "a substantial change from how things were done under the previous GC" that will relieve employers from some aggressive tactics. Implementation will hinge on how Regional Offices apply the two-week deadline, the prima facie requirement before EAJA letters, and the Division of Advice process for novel or precedent-setting matters.