Oct 7 (Reuters) - The National Labor Relations Board's

top prosecutor on Monday said her office will seek more money

for workers who are required to sign agreements not to join

their employers' competitors, doubling down on her earlier

claims that the pacts signed by millions of U.S. workers are

unlawful.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo in a memo to staff

lawyers also argued that like noncompete agreements, so-called

"stay-or-pay" provisions signed by some workers requiring them

to pay an employer if they leave their jobs violate federal

labor law by restricting workers' job opportunities and

discouraging organizing.

The NLRB is currently considering whether noncompete

agreements violate workers' rights under the National Labor

Relations Act in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company, after

Abruzzo first argued that they were illegal in a 2023 memo.

About 20% of U.S. workers, or 30 million people, have signed

noncompetes, and the Federal Trade Commission in April banned

the agreements with few exceptions. A Texas federal judge in

August blocked the ban from going into effect and the FTC is

appealing.

Abruzzo, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden,

said in Monday's memo that her office would not only prosecute

employers who require workers to sign noncompete and stay-or-pay

agreements, but also seek to remedy the array of harmful

monetary effects the pacts have on workers.

"Simply put, the goal is to place employees in the same

position, as nearly as possible, in which they would have been

had the employer not maintained the unlawful provision," Abruzzo

wrote in the memo.

The memo outlines a number of scenarios in which workers

could be entitled to relief from the board, such as former

employees demonstrating that they were out of work for a longer

period than they would otherwise have been as the result of

noncompete agreements. Those workers could be awarded lost

wages, but only if they could show that they were blocked from

applying for specific job openings, Abruzzo wrote.

Abruzzo also said she will urge the five-member board to

rule that stay-or-pay agreements are generally illegal. The

agreements can take various forms, including agreements to pay

back sign-on bonuses and training or educational costs, and

often require workers to pay thousands of dollars if they quit

or are fired from their jobs within a certain period after being

hired.

Abruzzo said the agreements interfere with workers' rights

to organize, join unions and collectively threaten to quit when

employers ignore their complaints.

"Employees are chilled from engaging in protected activity

to try to better their working conditions in their current job

... for fear that termination would trigger the payment

obligation," she said.

The memo keeps with a broader effort by Abruzzo and the

board to expand the remedies available to workers who are

illegally fired or otherwise subjected to unlawful labor

practices. In the 2022 case Thryv Inc, the NLRB ruled that

employers can be ordered to make workers whole for any "direct

or foreseeable" monetary harms stemming from illegal conduct.

Several companies including Starbucks ( SBUX ) and Macy's have asked

federal appeals courts to block the NLRB from imposing those

remedies.

They say that because the expanded remedies mirror damages

available in court, ordering them in an administrative

proceeding violates the companies' constitutional right to a

jury trial.

Read more:

Noncompete agreements violate US labor law, official says

US bans worker 'noncompete' agreements as business groups

vow to sue

US judge strikes down Biden administration ban on worker

'noncompete' agreements

US ban on worker noncompetes faces uphill legal battle

Workers entitled to more money from employers who break the

law - labor board

NLRB, Macy's duel over US Supreme Court ruling's impact on

agency powers

In Starbucks ( SBUX ) case, US judges 'flummoxed' over NLRB's

enforcement powers

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York)