National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

Subscribe to National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

In an exceptional development that could dramatically change collegiate sports in the United States, the Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recognized the fifteen players of the Dartmouth College men’s varsity basketball team as employees with a right to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), in a decision issued on February 5, 2024. As a result, the players are eligible to vote on whether they want to be represented by the Service Employees International Union, Local 560 for collective bargaining purposes. If a majority of the voting players vote in favor of the union, they will create the first-ever union of NCAA athletes.

The Dartmouth College decision signifies a shift by the NLRB. In 2015, the NLRB declined to exercise jurisdiction over a similar bid to unionize by Northwestern’s football team, thereby declining that opportunity to recognize student athletes as employees at that time. The opportunity was seized in the Dartmouth College decision, however, as the Regional Director distinguished the Northwestern decision – perhaps most notably, based on the fact that Dartmouth College competed in the Ivy League Conference, exclusively with other private schools that were subject to the NLRB’s jurisdiction, where Northwestern competed in the Big Ten Conference, in which every other school in the conference was a state-run institution that was not subject to the NLRB’s jurisdiction.Continue Reading NLRB’s recognition of Dartmouth College men’s basketball team as employees could change collegiate sports forever

At a union event on Labor Day in 2020, President Biden vowed to be “the strongest labor president you have ever had.”  Although he has only been in office a short time, his administration is already taking steps to honor that pledge.  Specifically, on February 4, 2021, House and Senate Democrats introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.   The PRO Act previously passed the House in February 2020 and President Biden has committed to sign it into law if passed in this Congress.  If enacted, the PRO Act will fundamentally reshape the American workplace.
Continue Reading Labor law under the Biden administration: A preview of the PRO Act

In another victory for employers and a further retreat from Obama-era policy, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) recently ruled that employers do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) by maintaining a policy that allows employers to monitor employees on the job by searching employees’ personal property on company premises and/or company networks and devices.

In a June 24, 2020 decision – Verizon Wireless, 369 NLRB No. 108 (2020) – the NLRB reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) ruling that Verizon Wireless and its related entities’ (collectively, “Verizon”) policy permitting company searches of workers’ personal property violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by infringing upon employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection under Section 7 of the Act.  The Board also upheld the ALJ’s ruling that another portion of Verizon’s policy permitting company monitoring of company computers and devices did not violate the Act.
Continue Reading NLRB greenlights company policy allowing searches of workers’ personal property on company premises and company devices and networks

While all employers are facing an unprecedented whirlwind of rapidly changing circumstances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers with unionized workforces face additional challenges as they take action in response to the outbreak while trying to avoid running afoul of the requirements of their collective bargaining agreements and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Here are a few suggestions for employers to consider as they navigate this new landscape.
Continue Reading Responding to COVID-19 in a unionized workplace

On February 26, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its final rule governing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the federal register. The final rule will undo a more relaxed Obama-era joint-employer test by reinstating the joint-employer standard that the Board followed for several decades prior to its 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. According to the Board, its ruling provides “greater precision, clarity, and detail that rulemaking allows,” as to what constitutes a joint employer.

The Browning-Ferris decision held that a company could be deemed a joint employer if “its control over the essential terms and conditions of another business’s employees was merely indirect, limited and routine, or contractually reserved but never exercised.” However, with its final rule, the Board will reinstate a pre-Browning-Ferris test which holds that a business is only a joint employer if it “has substantial direct and immediate control” of one or more essential terms or condition of a worker’s job such that the business “meaningfully affects matters” pertaining to the employment relationship. In its ruling, the NLRB defined those “essential terms and conditions of employment” as “wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.” It also defined “substantial” direct control as actions that have “a regular or continuous consequential effect” on one of the eight core aspects of a worker’s job that the Board listed, while pointing out that any direct control that is “sporadic, isolated, or de minimus” is insufficient to warrant a finding of joint employment.Continue Reading The NLRB offers “clarity” on its joint-employer test by issuing its final rule

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, in Caesars Entertainment d/b/a Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, 368 NLRB No. 143, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) held that an employer may restrict the use of its email system if it does so on a non-discriminatory basis, effectively reinstating the holding of Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007). This is one of several employer-friendly decisions issued by the Board this week.

Five years ago in Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB 1050 (2014), the Board held that employees who have been given access to their employer’s email system for work-related purposes have a presumptive right to use that system, on non-working time, for communications protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). This ruling severely restricted employers’ ability to prevent employees from using their email systems for non-work related purposes, including for unionization purposes.Continue Reading NLRB gives employers back the right to restrict employee use of work email

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, in Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) held that requiring employee confidentiality during workplace investigations does not constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act or NLRA). This is yet another employer-friendly decision in a series of recent rulings overturning Obama-era Board precedent.

Back in 2015, the Board held that employers could require confidentiality during workplace investigations only where they demonstrated that confidentiality was necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation. See Banner Estrella Med. Ctr., 362 NLRB 1108 (2015), enforcement denied on other grounds 851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017). This standard created a difficult situation for employers, placing the burden on them to determine if there was a need for confidentiality that outweighed any potential impact on workers’ NLRA rights. Moreover, the standard also conflicted with guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which encourages employers to keep investigations confidential to protect victims and to encourage reporting.Continue Reading NLRB greenlights employer rules requiring employee confidentiality during workplace investigations

The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a 3–1 decision in Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), on Wednesday that provides significant new guidance regarding the intersection of arbitration agreements and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board’s decision expressly authorizes employers to implement arbitration agreements that include collective waivers in direct response to employees filing a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. Further, the Board held that warning employees that they will be discharged if they do not accept such an agreement — even with FLSA litigation pending — does not constitute a violation of the NLRA.

In January 2015, seven employees filed an FLSA collective action against Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., a Houston-based restaurant group, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, 13 additional employees opted into the lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit, Cordúa implemented a revised mandatory arbitration agreement that was to be executed by all employees. The new agreement expressly required employees to waive FLSA collective rights and arbitrate FLSA claims on an individual basis. Though Cordúa had previously required employees to execute an arbitration agreement that waived class action rights, the new agreement marked the first time that employees were asked to waive collective rights. When the new agreement was presented to employees, managers informed employees that they would not be scheduled for any additional shifts unless and until they executed the new arbitration agreement. The charging parties asserted that both implementing the arbitration agreement because of the litigation and threatening to constructively terminate those who refused to sign the agreement constituted violations of the NLRA.Continue Reading NLRB offers new guidance on mandatory arbitration agreements following last year’s Epic decision

The National Labor Relations Board (Board or NLRB) issued on Friday its first proposed regulation in a series that will overhaul parts of union election procedures. The Board’s 113-page proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register today, Monday, August 12, modifies three of the board’s election processes: (1) the handling of blocking charges; (2) the voluntary recognition bar; and (3) certain collective bargaining relationships involving employers in the construction industry. This piecemeal approach is consistent with Board Chairman John Ring’s statements at the American Bar Association’s labor and employment conference last November and is part of the rule-making agenda the Board announced in May.

Under the Obama administration, the Board passed the “quickie” or “ambush” election rule, which significantly shortens the time between the date an election petition is filed with the NLRB and the date the election is held, requires preelection hearings to be held very shortly after the filing of a representation petition, and requires employers to provide union representatives with far more information on potential voters than in the past. These new procedures were derided by employers and business groups, which was most clearly evidenced in 2017 when the Board received over 7,000 responses to its invitation for comments on whether to roll back these changes.

In the Board’s Friday announcement, a three-member majority, over one Board member objection, said, “The board believes, subject to comments, that the proposed amendments will better protect employees’ statutory right of free choice on questions concerning representation by removing unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of such questions through the preferred means of a board-conducted secret ballot election.” Chairman Ring added, “There are few more important responsibilities entrusted to the NLRB than protecting the freedom of employees to choose, or refrain from choosing, a labor organization to represent them, including by ensuring fair and timely board-conducted secret ballot elections. We believe that the changes we propose today further the goal of protecting this vital freedom.” The Board’s lone Democrat, Lauren McFerran, objected to the proposed rule-making.
Continue Reading NLRB publishes proposed changes to union election procedures

Employers considering requiring their employees sign arbitration agreements with class waivers just got a real-world example of the effectiveness of such agreements. On September 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the enforceability of arbitration agreements signed by thousands of Uber drivers in California. In the underlying lawsuits, the Uber…