National Labor Relations Board

Subscribe to National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a decision on July 21, 2020, which will aid employers in their ability to discipline or discharge an employee who engaged in abusive or offensive conduct in connection with protected concerted activity. In General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), the Board modified its standard for determining under what circumstances profane language or sexually or racially offensive speech loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Before today, there were several circumstance-specific standards used by the Board in determining whether an employee was lawfully disciplined or discharged when they made profane, racist or sexually harassing comments in connection with Section 7 activity. There was one standard for workplace confrontations with supervisors or managers as applied in Atlantic Steel. A second standard was used for examining social media posts and most other  interactions between employees, referred to as the “totality of circumstances.”  Still, another standard was used when offensive statements or conduct occurred on the picket line, as set forth in Clear Pine Mouldings. All of these standards assumed that the employee’s Section 7 activity was inseparable from the abusive comments and conduct. Additionally, in many circumstances the outcome of those cases conflicted widely with an employer’s obligations under federal, state and local discrimination laws.Continue Reading NLRB ends long-time standard which protected obscene, racist and sexually harassing speech in connection with Section 7 activity

Several labor organizations, along with racial and social justice organizations, conducted a mass walkout on July 20, 2020 to protest racial inequality and working conditions in the United States.  Thousands of workers in more than 200 cities walked off the job on a full-day strike while others who were unable to strike for a full day walked out about for eight minutes.  According to the Strike for Black Lives website, the purpose of the strike was to demand higher wages, better jobs, the right to unionize, and healthcare for all.  These organizations specifically call for corporations to address racism in the workplace, raise wages, provide healthcare, and provide ample personal protective equipment (PPE), among other things.

These types of mass walkouts raise several considerations for employers as they attempt to balance their support for racial and social justice with their tolerance of competing views and their need to maintain operations.  While some employers may allow their employees to participate with little to no disruption to their operations, others, such as hospitals, will have to find ways to continue to run their operations (perhaps by hiring temporary workers) if they find themselves with reduced staff.  Other employers may be forced to temporarily close or take other measures to manage the sudden loss of available employees.
Continue Reading Responding to employee advocacy and workplace walkouts during times of protest

On January 12, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its final rule updating and revising its interpretation of joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new rule simplifies the FLSA joint employer analysis with a four-factor test for determining whether workers are jointly employed by associated businesses or persons. The DOL’s changes are the first meaningful revisions since the department’s interpretive regulation was issued 60 years ago. According to the department, the purpose of the rule is “to promote certainty for employer and employees, reduce litigation, promote greater uniformity among court decisions and encourage innovation in the economy.” Although application of this final rule is limited to FLSA wage and hour issues, the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are expected to similarly revisit the joint employer analysis in their respective contexts.

History

The new DOL rule replaces an interpretation that had broadened liability for joint employment under the FLSA. In 2016, former head of the Wage and Hour Division David Weil issued guidance that increased scrutiny of situations in which multiple companies might employ workers jointly. In 2017, the DOL rescinded Weil’s interpretation and in April 2019, provided a “Notice of Proposed Rule Making” relating to the joint employer test.   The final rule adopted on January 12, 2020, makes certain changes to and clarifications of the April 2019 proposed version. The rule takes effect on March 16, 2020.Continue Reading DOL makes historic, pro-business changes to FLSA joint employer test

On December 13, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) announced a series of modifications to its representation case procedures. These modifications will be published on December 18, 2019, and are scheduled to go into effect on April 16, 2020. Unlike the Obama Board’s 2014 amendments, the current Board has elected to implement these changes without notice and comment.

According to the Board, “[w]hile retaining the essentials of existing representation case procedures, these amendments modify them to permit parties additional time to comply with various pre-election requirements instituted in 2015, to clarify and reinstate some procedures that better ensure the opportunity for litigation and resolution of unit scope and voter eligibility issues prior to an election, and to make several other changes the Board deems to be appropriate policy choices that better balance the interest in the expeditious processing of questions of representation with the efficient, fair, and accurate resolution of questions of representation.”

This announcement should come as a reprieve to employers after the Obama Board’s 2014 amendments, which imposed, among other things, tight procedural deadlines on employers and sped up the scheduling of elections thereby shortening the window employers had to conduct their own campaigns regarding unionization. The most notable changes are that now, elections will not normally be scheduled before the twentieth business day after the date of the direction of an election, disputes concerning unit scope and voter eligibility will normally be litigated at the pre-election hearing and resolved by the regional director before an election is directed, and employers will have a right to file post-hearing briefs.Continue Reading Changes to the NLRB’s representation case procedures to go into effect in 2020

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