The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently overturned a 2016 decision holding that an employer violates Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain to a newly elected union prior to disciplining unit members.
On June 10, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) renounced jurisdiction over faculty employees at most religious educational institutions. The Bethany College case overruled the NLRB’s 2014 Pacific Lutheran University decision, through which many NLRB Regional Directors had ordered union elections at religiously-affiliated schools (such as a Catholic university in Seattle) In Bethany College, the NLRB adopted a new jurisdictional standard, adopted from a 2002 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, University of Great Falls v. NLRB, under which it will not assert jurisdiction over an institution that: (a) holds itself out to the public as a religious institution, (b) is nonprofit, and (c) is religiously affiliated.
In an abbreviated order issued on May 30, 2020, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) improperly implemented portions of the final rules on representation elections initially scheduled to take effect on April 16, 2020. The NLRB delayed implementation to May 31, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to provide relief for employers whose workplace rules and policies were under attack from the Board during the Obama administration. Following the line of authority started with its decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the NLRB continues to review handbook, code of conduct, and other employer rules with a more relaxed, common-sense approach.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a supplemental decision on May 20, 2020, finding lawful a policy prohibiting employees from possessing or using their cell phones on the manufacturing floor or at their workstations.
Parts of the country have begun the process of returning to work, in places where COVID-19 infection rates have flattened or shown a decline. But the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 remains, and some employers may be faced with parts of their workforces refusing to return to work or to perform certain assignments, citing the health risk. What are employers’ options with respect to such employees? There are both legal and practical considerations.
On May 20, 2020, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb issued new guidance in Memorandum G.C. 20-06 regarding the NLRB’s remedial notice posting requirements.
Employees—particularly healthcare employees—are increasingly refusing to work because of safety concerns and the need for accommodations related to COVID-19. In certain circumstances, these refusals may trigger protections afforded by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), among others.
After more than two years of deliberation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement [T-MAC in Mexico] will enter into force on July 1, 2020. The three-nation agreement includes a key element employers may want to take note of—employers and unions will be able to negotiate disputes through alternative methods of dispute resolution.
On April 1, 2020, we explained that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would resume processing representation cases on April 6, 2020. Since then, NLRB regional offices have been scheduling and conducting telephonic pre-election hearings and generally have been denying videoconference requests.
Over the course of the past few weeks, we have all asked and attempted to answer many questions about workplace law and the COVID-19 response, including questions arising under the new Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. In the labor space, one question that continues to come up goes something like this: “We have heard that taking advantage of programs under the CARES Act may require an employer to remain neutral during any union organizing effort. Is that true and, if yes, what does it mean?”
Virginia has long billed itself as a business-friendly state with low taxes and commonsense employment regulations. But recent changes—largely adopted with little fanfare or scrutiny—are poised to revolutionize the labor and employment landscape in Virginia. These changes—compounded by the likely recession resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic—will present tremendous challenges for Virginia employers.
On March 31, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it had finalized a series of amendments to its blocking-charge policy, voluntary recognition bar, and rules governing Section 9(a) recognition in the construction industry.
Every day media outlets are reporting on people’s concerns about how the COVID-19 pandemic is being handled: citizens are complaining about the government; politicians are complaining about each other; and workers are complaining about their employers. In addition, stories about protests, walkouts, or other employee-led work disruptions have become increasingly more common. Whether constructively sincere or mere venting, in the context of labor relations, it is imperative employers know and understand the legal parameters that govern their responses to such employee actions.
On April 1, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board announced it will not extend its temporary suspension of Board-conducted elections past April 3, 2020. Instead, it will resume conducting elections beginning on Monday, April 6, 2020.
On August 9, 2019, we explained that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding certain proposed amendments to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rules on “blocking charges,” a bar on voluntary recognitions, and Section 9(a) recognition in the construction industry. On March 31, 2020, the Board announced that it has finalized the proposed amendments, which it believes “better protect employees’ statutory right of free choice on questions concerning representation.” The final rules will be published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2020, and should take effect after May 31, 2020.
As employers everywhere grapple with the COVID-19 crisis and its impact upon their employees and operations, questions have arisen regarding union contracts that expire on or about March 31, 2020. Although every labor contract and bargaining relationship is unique, established federal labor law principles can be applied to guide employers during this difficult time.
Ogletree Deakins’ Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group is pleased to announce the publication of the winter 2020 issue of the Practical NLRB Advisor. This special double issue offers readers a thorough year in review of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) activity in 2019.
The COVID-19 outbreak implicates many different laws for employers to consider as they develop and refine their responses to rapidly changing circumstances.
Federal labor agencies have kicked their rulemaking efforts into high gear. One month after the U.S. Department of Labor published a final rule defining (and limiting) when one entity can be deemed the joint employer of another’s employees, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has followed suit.
On February 6, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2474, The Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 (PRO Act). The PRO Act would fundamentally alter federal labor law by dramatically tilting the playing field in favor of labor unions at the expense of employers and employees.
On December 18, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published final rules that will take effect April 16, 2020, changing and clarifying many of the procedures established in the 2014 amendments to the representation case procedures.
December 2019 brought significant changes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case law and election procedures. The following highlights a few of those changes as we get into the new year and policy reviews get underway.
The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a free-trade pact that was agreed to by U.S. President Donald Trump, then-president of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on November 30, 2018. This agreement changes the current rules governing North American trade contained in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
On December 18, 2019, the NLRB published final rules changing and clarifying many of the representation case procedures established in the 2014 amendments. The rules, which will take effect April 16, 2020, state unequivocally that “the Board is not rescinding the 2014 Amendments in their entirety.” Rather, the 2019 rules address issues of fairness and statutory compliance the 2014 amendments altered or did not address.
Arbitration is a strongly favored federal policy and generally can be relied on to resolve even statutory discrimination claims. This is not a novel concept in federal jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the United States down (although California and the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have and had a different view).
Some employers may think the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a law that does not apply to them because their employees are not represented by unions. However, the NLRA’s coverage is much broader than just union relationships.
Apogee Retail reversed the NLRB’s controversial 2015 decision in Banner Estrella Medical Center, which had made it illegal for employers to maintain rules or policies requiring confidentiality of employees during ongoing workplace investigations.
In Caesars Entertainment d/b/a Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, Case 28-CA-060841 (December 16, 2019), the National Labor Relations Board ruled that employees do not have a statutory right under the National Labor Relations Act to use their employer’s email system or other information technology (IT) resources for Section 7 purposes, such as union organizing.
On December 16, 2019, in Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc., Case 28-CA-213783, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, a controversial Obama Board decision that had overruled more than 50 years of precedent. So what was old is new again.