The 2020 presidential election, coupled with nationwide civil unrest and a global pandemic, is creating a lot of conversation in employees’ personal and professional lives. In a February 2020 survey, employees reported:
The NLRB recently reversed course again to allow temporary employees provided by a staffing agency to join regular employees in a single bargaining unit without the consent of the employer or the staffing agency. Miller & Anderson, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 39 (2016).
The Board Flip Flops
Historically, unions seeking to organize employees directly employed by an employer (called a “user employer” by the Board) alongside temporary employees provided by a staffing agency (“provided employees”) in a single bargaining unit were required to obtain consent of both the user employer and the staffing agency.
In 2000, however, the Clinton Board overturned that rule to eliminate the consent requirement, allowing employees to form one bargaining unit as long as they shared a community of interest and the employer and the staffing agency were considered “joint employers.” M. B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000). Four years later, the Bush II Board decided Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004), and overturned the Board’s decision in Sturgis to again require consent.
Continue Reading NLRB Reverses Course Again: Organizing Temporary Workers Just Got Easier
Employers probably are aware of the “quickie” election rules implemented earlier this year by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), but they may not have considered all of the rules’ consequences. With as little as 15 to 20 days to respond to an organizing drive, employers must be prepared to educate employees about the risks and consequences of union representation on very short notice. While many employers have prepared as we described here, some still may not be ready to answer questions from workers and explain the consequences of unionizing the workplace. Responding to workers’ questions about a union without being properly prepared can make a mess of things, even if employers speak the truth.
A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Board decision that provides a good reminder that managers must be extremely careful even when speaking the truth to workers during an organizing campaign.
Be Careful What You Say
When a car dealership in Illinois learned that some employees were stirring up interest in unionizing, the plant’s general manager met with workers to discuss unions and answer their questions. The manager answered their questions honestly, but his answers still violated labor law, according to the Board and the Sixth Circuit.Continue Reading What Employers Can and Cannot Say During a Union Organizing Campaign
In recent years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has aggressively sought to emphasize that its reach extends beyond solely unionized workforces. On March 18, 2015, NLRB General Counsel Richard Griffin released a 30-page report that provides labor lawyers and HR professionals guidance on what the General Counsel contends is – and is not – a lawful employee handbook rule under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The General Counsel’s report makes clear just how broadly the Board applies its rules, finding fault in a number of common-sense workplace practices regarding confidentiality, criticism of the company, misconduct, communication with the public or the media, conflicts of interest, and a variety of other topics. Non-union employers may be asking, “Why do I care?” But the NLRA applies to every employer (at least those engaged in “interstate commerce,” which is almost everyone).
Virtually anyone – individual employees, union organizers or other non-employees – can (and does) file Board complaints, and one of the first things the NLRB’s investigator will ask you for is your policies. Even if the investigator concludes the charge is without merit, if you are “maintaining” overly broad policies, you may have a fight with the NLRB on your hands – and at the very least you will face a demand to modify the policy and post a notice informing employees of your transgression and your commitment to upholding employee rights to participate in protected, concerted activity. If you’ve got a union lurking (or campaigning), that’s like free (and forced) advertising, telling employees why they need a union.
We’ve written about the NLRB’s scrutiny of employer rules on social media use and off-duty access, but this report is a “one stop shopping” trip for purposes of NLRA compliance. The report (available here) provides real-life examples of allegedly unlawful and lawful policies and the reasoning behind the decisions. And it provides (starting at page 26) what some might view as “model” policies prepared by Wendy’s International LLC and the NLRB pursuant to a Board settlement agreement. You may not like – or decide to adopt – the stance that the General Counsel has taken on these policies, but at least you (sort of) know his position on many handbook policies.
Continue Reading NLRB Says “Mere Maintenance” of Employee Handbook Rules May Violate the NLRA
On October 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its decision in Murphy Oil USA Inc., once again attempting to prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into agreements to arbitrate employment disputes if those agreements preclude collective or class action litigation. As we have blogged about in the past, this new decision runs contrary to an overwhelming majority of federal district and appellate court decisions rejecting and criticizing the Obama NLRB’s previous attempt to so extend the law. A copy of the Murphy Oil USA decision can be found here.
In Murphy Oil, the NLRB split 3-2 along party lines, with the majority finding that gas station chain Murphy Oil’s arbitration agreements were unlawful. In so doing, the NLRB reaffirmed its controversial January 2012 DR Horton ruling, where the Board ruled that such agreements conflict with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused the enforce the Board’s order, and the NLRB declined to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In what some might say is refusing to take “no” for an answer, the NLRB is trying to resurrect its DR Horton decision.Continue Reading NLRB Attempts to Make an End Run Around Courts Invalidating its Rulings on Arbitration Agreements
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated President Obama’s 2012 "recess" appointments of several members of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board"), which occurred while the Senate was in a three day recess. As a result, every decision issued by the Board between January 4, 2012, and July 30, 2013, is void, including some highly controversial decisions which negatively impacted employers. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (June 26, 2014). A copy of the Noel Canning opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdfContinue Reading Supreme Court’s Noel Canning Decision Invalidates Numerous NLRB Decisions
The Obama NLRB’s regulatory agenda continues to fare poorly in the federal courts. On the heels of court decisions staying the NLRB’s new “notice” requirement, see previous posts here, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has just struck down the NLRB’s new rules designed to speed up union representation
In response to two federal court cases we previously blogged about here and here, the NLRB has indefinitely postponed implementation of its notice posting rule pending appeals in both of those cases. The bottom line is that no employer needs to post the notice for the time being.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for
The NLRB’s new posting rule, which would apply to virtually all private sector employers, was scheduled to go in effect on April 30, 2012. Yesterday, we blogged about a South Carolina federal trial court decision striking down the posting rule. More good news for employers arrived today, as the United States Court of Appeals for
As previously blogged here, a federal court located in the District of Columbia upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) rule requiring nearly all private sector employers, whether unionized or not, to post a notice to their employees about certain employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. While upholding the rule, that federal