The Hidden Pattern: How OSHA Violations Predict NLRB Filings

The Escalation Sequence Nobody Talks About

When OSHA cites a company for workplace safety violations, most compliance teams treat it as a safety problem. When the Wage and Hour Division opens an investigation, they treat it as a payroll problem. When an NLRB unfair labor practice charge lands, it becomes a labor relations problem. Three agencies, three silos, three separate response plans.

But the data tells a different story. Across 2.3 million employer records linked from four federal agencies, a clear pattern emerges: employers cited by OSHA are statistically more likely to face WHD investigations within 18 months, and NLRB filings within 36 months. We identified 3,347 employers with enforcement actions from all three agencies—and the sequence is remarkably consistent.

Cross-Agency Enforcement by the Numbers

LaborAudit’s entity resolution engine links records across DOL WHD, NLRB, OSHA, and SEC EDGAR using Bayesian probabilistic matching. This allows us to see what no single agency database can show: the full enforcement picture for a single employer.

The OSHA → WHD → NLRB Pipeline

Among the 3,347 three-agency employers, the most common sequence is OSHA citation first, followed by a WHD investigation, then an NLRB charge. This pattern holds across industries, but the prevalence varies dramatically by sector.

Why does this sequence repeat? Workplace safety failures often correlate with broader labor law non-compliance. Employers cutting corners on safety are frequently the same employers misclassifying workers, shorting overtime, or retaliating against whistleblowers—the very conditions that trigger WHD complaints and union organizing drives.

Case Study: Dollar General

Dollar General illustrates the pattern at scale. Between 2015 and 2025, the company accumulated 244 OSHA citations across hundreds of store locations—primarily for blocked emergency exits and fire hazards. During the same period, WHD investigations uncovered systematic overtime and minimum wage violations, resulting in multiple class-action settlements.

By 2023, the NLRB had received 13 unfair labor practice charges against Dollar General, many alleging retaliation against employees who raised safety concerns. The timeline is textbook: safety failures created the conditions for wage violations, which in turn fueled worker organizing and ULP charges.

For employment lawyers, this pattern is a roadmap. A client with a stack of OSHA citations isn’t just a safety case—it’s a signal to look for wage violations and potential labor relations issues.

The 2023 OSHA-NLRB MOU Changes the Game

In October 2023, OSHA and the NLRB signed a Memorandum of Understanding formalizing information sharing between the two agencies. Under the MOU, OSHA inspectors who observe potential unfair labor practices—retaliation, interference with organizing—can refer cases directly to the NLRB.

This means the escalation pipeline we identified in historical data is now an official enforcement strategy. Employers who previously faced sequential, uncoordinated agency actions will increasingly face coordinated, simultaneous investigations.

The DOJ-FTC-DOL-NLRB MOU of 2024 extends this coordination further, specifically in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Acquirers who overlook an OSHA history may find that history surfaced during DOJ merger review.

What This Means for Practitioners

For employment lawyers: OSHA citation history is discovery material. When representing workers in wage-and-hour cases, OSHA records can establish a pattern of systemic non-compliance that supports class certification.

For ESG consultants: the OSHA–NLRB correlation maps directly to SASB SV-HL-310 (Workforce Health & Safety) and GRI 403 (Occupational Health and Safety). Multi-agency enforcement history is the strongest available signal for social risk in supply chains.

For M&A teams: pre-acquisition labor due diligence must be cross-agency. Reviewing OSHA records alone misses the downstream WHD and NLRB exposure that the data consistently predicts.