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
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
NLRB extends effective date of its final rule modifying representation case procedures – Now effective May 31, 2020
On March 24, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to postpone the effective date of its final rule modifying the Agency’s regulation on union representative-case procedures, from April 16, 2020 to May 31, 2020, in order to facilitate the resolution of legal challenges.
The NLRB’s final rule, which rolled back some of the burdensome requirements of the “quickie election” rule issued under the Obama Administration, was published on December 13, 2019. Many employers argued that the original quickie election rule stripped them of the proper due process that they should have been afforded when served with a union representation petition. Further, employers complained that the rule inherently shortened the election campaign timeframe and impeded those employers that had hoped to give employees guidance about union representation, leaving such employees with substantially less time to consider important facts necessary for making a thoughtful choice during a union election.
Continue Reading NLRB extends effective date of its final rule modifying representation case procedures – Now effective May 31, 2020
The NLRB offers “clarity” on its joint-employer test by issuing its final rule
By Lori Armstrong Halber & Gavin Carpenter on
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
The Board reinstates traditional deferral standard
On December 23, 2019, in United Parcel Service, Inc., 369 NLRB 1 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) gave employers one final holiday gift by returning to its traditional standard for post-arbitral deferral. The Board uses this standard to decide whether it should defer to arbitration awards in cases alleging the unlawful discipline or discharge of an employee under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Under the re-established traditional standard, the Board defers to the arbitrator’s award if the following four elements are met: (1) the arbitral proceedings appear to have been fair and regular; (2) all parties have agreed to be bound; (3) the arbitrator considered the unfair labor practice issue; and (4) the arbitrator’s decision is not clearly repugnant to the Act.
The Board changed the post-arbitral deferral standard in Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., 361 NLRB 1127 (2014). Under the 2014 standard, even if the arbitration procedures appeared to have been fair and regular and the parties agreed to be bound by the results of arbitration, the Board would not defer to an arbitral decision unless (1) the arbitrator was explicitly authorized to decide the unfair labor practice issue; (2) the arbitrator was presented with and considered the statutory issue, or was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral; and (3) Board law reasonably permitted the award. The burden of proof rested with the party urging deferral. According to the current Board, that change was “a drastic contraction of deferral practices that had existed for decades” and “by disfavoring the peaceful resolution of employment disputes about discharge and discipline issues through collectively bargained grievance arbitration proceedings, [the 2014 standard] disrupted the labor relations stability that the Board is charged by Congress to encourage.”Continue Reading The Board reinstates traditional deferral standard
NLRB gives employers back the right to restrict employee use of work email
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
NLRB greenlights employer rules requiring employee confidentiality during workplace investigations
By Tom Posey & Amanda Brown on
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
NLRB returns to past precedent in holding that employer’s duty to deduct union dues ceases when collective bargaining agreement expires
By Lori Armstrong Halber & Gavin Carpenter on
On December 16, 2019, in Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center (368 NLRB No. 139 (2019)), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned its 2015 decision in Lincoln Lutheran of Racine (362 NLRB 1655 (2015)), restoring the Board’s 50+ year precedent established under Bethlehem Steel (136 NLRB 1500 (1962), that there is no independent statutory obligation to check off and pay employees’ union dues after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), even where the contract does not contain a union security provision. The decision is part of a trend of the current Board to reinstate legal standards that had stood for decades before being overturned during the Obama administration’s union-friendly Board.
In Valley Medical Center, the CBA between the employer and the union expired on December 31, 2016. The parties continued to operate under the expired contract, which contained a “check-off” provision that stated “the Check-Off Agreement and system heretofore entered into and established by the Employer and the Union for the check-off of Union dues by voluntary authorization … shall be continued in effect for the term of the Agreement.” The authorization form also stated that it was valid “during the term of the Agreement.” On February 1, 2018, almost 13 months after the expiration of the parties’ contract, and after providing 5 days’ notice and without providing the Union with an opportunity to bargain, the employer stopped deducting Union employees’ dues.Continue Reading NLRB returns to past precedent in holding that employer’s duty to deduct union dues ceases when collective bargaining agreement expires
NLRB publishes proposed changes to union election procedures
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
NLRB returns to more employer-friendly independent contractor test
By Michele Haydel Gehrke & Brian Morris on
In a recent decision involving SuperShuttle drivers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) overruled a 2014 decision making it less likely a worker would be deemed an independent contractor, returning to the more employer-friendly common law test to determine independent contractor status.
In 2014, the Board purported to clarify the standard for evaluating whether a worker is an independent contractor (see FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB 610 (2014)). In FedEx, the Board articulated a new factor in the contractor analysis – whether “putative independent contractor is … rendering services as part of an independent business” (Id.) In doing so, the Board diminished the significance of the putative contractor’s entrepreneurial opportunity in the independent contractor analysis by making it one aspect of the newly created “independent business” prong (Id. at 619).
Last week, the Board overruled FedEx and returned to the traditional common law test. SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (2019). Under that test, “entrepreneurial control, like employer control, is a principle by which to evaluate the overall effect of the common-law factors on a putative contractor’s independence to pursue economic gain” (Id. at *9). The Board held that the test articulated in FedEx “fundamentally shifted the independent contractor analysis … to one of economic realities, i.e., a test that greatly diminishes the significance of entrepreneurial opportunity and selectively overemphasizes the significance of ‘right to control’ factors relevant to perceived economic dependency” (Id. at *7-8).Continue Reading NLRB returns to more employer-friendly independent contractor test
NLRB clarifies standard for protected concerted activity
By Michele Haydel Gehrke & Brian Morris on
On January 11, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board clarified and narrowed the standard for finding that an employee engaged in protected concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. See Alstate Maintenance, LLC, 367 NLRB No. 68 (2019). In doing so, the board overturned a 2011 decision – WorldMark by Wyndham, 356 NLRB 765 (2011) – that held that an employee who protests at a group meeting is necessarily engaged in concerted protected activity.
Summary of decision
In Alstate, a manager approached airport baggage handlers (referred to as skycaps) and requested that they help unload a soccer team’s equipment. One of the skycaps, Trevor Greenidge, responded that “we did a similar job a year prior and we didn’t receive a tip.” When the soccer team’s equipment arrived, the skycaps walked away. The employer terminated Greenidge “for griping about not being tipped.” Greenidge contended that his comment regarding lack of tips (not the act of walking away from the unloading task) was protected concerted activity and thus his termination violated the Act.
The board rejected the employee’s argument, concluding that Greenidge’s conduct was neither concerted nor engaged in for mutual aid or protection. In reaching this conclusion, the board reaffirmed the standard for protected concerted activities derived from its earlier decisions in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493 (1984) and Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986).Continue Reading NLRB clarifies standard for protected concerted activity