Lessons for Employers in the Case of a Former Google Software Engineer Fired for Violating Company Anti-Discrimination Policies

February 23, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

Earlier this week, an NLRB attorney issued an advice memo concluding that software giant Google did not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), when the company terminated software engineer James Damore, who penned a controversial memo criticizing Google’s diversity initiatives. The memo, and Google's swift reaction, were widely covered in the press and speculation followed questioning whether Google's response was appropriate or whether it would face a challenge.   More ›

In Victory for Employers, NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Joint Employment Test

December 19, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On December 14, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) overruled the standard for joint employment set forth in Browning-Ferris and returned to longstanding, prior principles governing the determination of joint-employer status. With a new majority, the Board held “joint-employer status shall once again require proof that putative joint employer entities have exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having “reserved” the right to exercise control); the control must be “direct and immediate” (rather than indirect), and joint-employer status will not result from control that is “limited and routine.”  The Board made clear it intended to align the determination of joint-employer status with the holdings of numerous federal and state courts. Although finding Browning-Ferris well-intentioned, the Board identified five fundamental flaws that warranted reversal. The Board’s decision is being widely viewed as a victory for employers as it removes ambiguities related to control and clarifies the standard for determining joint employment. More ›

Hold the Mayo: Jimmy John's Workers' Disparaging Statements Not Protected by the NLRA Says 8th Circuit

August 4, 2017 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

How far can employees go during a labor dispute to make their case to the public? For years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has granted employees a surprising amount of leeway, so long as their statements were not made with malicious intent and pertained to an ongoing labor dispute. In other words, employees could go quite far. Fortunately for employers, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently tamped down this enthusiasm and redirected the NLRB to long-standing Supreme Court precedent. More ›

Management Rights Clause Does Not Give Management Right to Skip Bargaining Over Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreement D.C. Court of Appeals Says

May 2, 2017 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

In Minteq v. NLRA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held an employer committed an unfair labor practice under Section 8 (a)(5) by failing to notify and bargain with a union over its requirement that new employees sign a non-compete and confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. More ›

Amex Employment Arbitration Policy held Unlawful by NLRB

November 20, 2015 by Mellissa A. Schafer

Amex Card Services Company ("Amex") operates a call center in Phoenix, AZ.  Amex required all new hires to sign an acknowledgement form acknowledging receipt and understanding of its Arbitration Policy as a condition of employment. The policy mandated final and binding arbitration to resolve all employment-related disputes. The policy also mandated that all claims subject to arbitration be submitted on an individual basis.  More ›

NLRB has wide Discretion to Delineate Parameters of Bargaining Unit

August 17, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Despite its efforts to create a larger bargaining unit comprised of allegedly similarly-situated employees, an Alabama nursing home operator recently learned the hard way about the NLRB's "wide" discretion in determining who may be included in a bargaining unit. More ›

Private Facebook Message not Concerted Activity Under NLRA

May 24, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In this case, an employer terminated a medical office worker based upon a private Facebook message she sent to nine other current and former employees. The message contained derogatory comments about the employer but focused on one supervisor and another returning supervisor she disliked. The employee also expressed a desire to be terminated. No one copied on the message responded directly to the message content at issue. Another employee who received the message gave it to the employer. The employer terminated the author of the message on the grounds that it was obvious the employee no longer wished to work there and disliked the employer and, given these feelings, the employer was concerned about the employee’s interactions with patients.  More ›

D.C. Circuit Court Strikes down NLRB Posting Rule

May 8, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) had previously passed a rule that employers who were subject to its jurisdiction were required to post on their properties and websites a “Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act.” The posting basically advises employees of their rights to:  More ›

NLRB Permits Unions to Charge dues Objectors for Lobbying Expenses, and Seeks Further Briefing on “Germaneness” Standard

January 10, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A former Union member filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Union, which represents hospital employees, violated the National Labor Relations Act by its treatment of the former Union member and other employees who resigned their Union memberships and objected to paying dues that were unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. More ›

Hospital’s Challenge to NLRB Health care rule Denied

November 27, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A hospital challenged the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) certification of the union as the representative of a "wall to wall" bargaining unit of the hospital's professional and non-professional employees. The hospital claimed that the Health Care Rule (which limited the number and type of bargaining units allowed in an acute care setting) violated the National Labor Relations Act, Section 9(c)(5) because it endorsed the extent of a union's organization as the controlling factor in determining bargaining units. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, rejected this argument, as well as the hospital's argument that the NLRB violated the Rule because the union was required to show, and the Board was required to find, extraordinary circumstances to join together a number of the Rule's designated units. The Court of Appeals, however, found that such a showing was not required under the Rule. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives