Menu

Showing 9 posts from September 2019.

NLRB Proposes Rule that Would Deny Undergraduate and Graduate Students the Right to Unionize

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has proposed a new rule which would exclude undergraduate and graduate students from coverage under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, students who perform study-related services in return for financial compensation at private colleges and universities would not be able to collectively organize as employees. The proposed rule is subject to a sixty-day comment period. More ›

NFL Running Back Union Blocked in Attempt to Form Separate Bargaining Unit

A unit clarification petition filed by the fledgling International Brotherhood of Professional Running Backs (IBPRB) was dismissed on September 17, 2019, by the Acting Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The IBPRB wanted to carve out running backs from the collective bargaining agreement between the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA)—the union that represents all NFL players—so that they could negotiate their own labor contract with the NFL. The IBPRB cited several reasons for their petition, including  "unique career structures," along with a claim that the mini-max rookie wage contract is economically harmful to running backs, but "advantageous" to quarterbacks. More ›

NLRB Deals Another Blow to Obama-Era Micro-Units

From an employer's perspective, one of the most challenging decisions to come out of the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was the concept of "micro-units" within an employer's organizational structure. Under the concept, employers could have multiple, small bargaining units, sometimes involving different unions, notwithstanding the fact that a broader group of employees shared a significant (though not ''overwhelming'') community of interest. That decision was later overruled by the NLRB in PCC Structurals, Inc. 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), which restored the Board's prior standard for determining the appropriateness of a petitioned-for bargaining unit. Now, in The Boeing Company, 368 NLRB No. 67 (2019), the NLRB has further clarified the required analysis for this determination. More ›

Eighth Circuit to Decide Viability of Bringing Class Action Claims Under the ADA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will soon be deciding a case that may have important implications on the viability of class actions for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Eighth Circuit will look at whether a large class can be certified in ADA litigation notwithstanding certain individualized inquiries inherent to the ADA. More ›

NLRB to Revisit Issue of When Employees Lose NLRA Section 7 Protection When Using Threatening and Demeaning Language

While discussing work assignments with his supervisor, an employee uses abusive and profane language. In another incident, the employee disrupts a workplace meeting by playing loud music with racial and political overtones. These and other behaviors led to discipline which was in turn challenged by the employee as an unfair labor practice. In General Motors LLC and Charles Robinson (14-CA-197985; 14-CA-208242), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requested public comment on when insubordinate, threatening or intimidating behavior should not constitute protected activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It is not uncommon for the NLRB to request public comment in situations where there may be a policy shift.

The facts of General Motors LLC and Charles Robinson are relatively straightforward. Charles Robinson is a Union Committee representative, and he could be characterized as a zealous supporter of worker rights in a unionized environment. From a management perspective, he could just as easily be deemed a disruptive, uncooperative, intimidating, and threatening employee. Robinson was disciplined by the employer for essentially three reasons: More ›

NLRB Reverses Itself and Broadens Employer Property Rights in Restricting Access to Non-Employee Union Agents

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has revisited the issue of when an employer may restrict access to its private property by non-employee union agents. In Kroger Limited Partnership, a union business agent was denied access to the food store's parking lot to solicit Kroger's customers to boycott the store. When the union agent refused to leave, the supermarket called police to force the union agent to leave the premises. The NLRB was subsequently was called upon to assess whether Kroger's actions were unlawful and discriminatory under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). More ›

California Governor Extends Workplace Harassment Training Deadline to 2021

Last December, this blog detailed SB1343 and the law's requirements for employers with five or more employees to provide anti-harassment training. SB1343 expands existing anti-harassment training requirements, and also covers seasonal and temporary workers. Employers are required to provide their non-supervisory employees with one hour of training, and supervisory employees are required to complete two hours of training. The training must then be repeated every two years thereafter. Originally, the deadline for completing the initial training was set at January 1, 2020. More ›

A "Perfectly Clear" Successor Under the NLRB is Less Than Perfectly Clear

A recent decision by a three judge panel of the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights potential pitfalls for successor employers who want to establish new compensation terms. In First Student, Inc., the D.C. Circuit panel concluded the employer in that case was a "perfectly clear" successor under existing precedent of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because it intended to offer employment to the all of the employees of the unionized predecessor who met minimum criteria. The concept of a perfectly clear successor first was raised by the United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.. In that decision, the Supreme Court noted that in certain circumstances it is "perfectly clear that the new employer plans to retain all of the employees in the unit," and the employer then is obligated to bargain with the union before making unilateral changes to wages, benefits, and other mandatory terms or conditions of employment. More ›

NLRB Ruling: Simply Misclassifying Workers is Not an Unfair Labor Practice

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to retreat from its previously expansive approach to what might be considered interference with Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act"). Followers of Hinshaw's blog submissions will recall the NLRB gave a very broad interpretation during the Obama era to the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. An August 29, 2019 ruling from the NLRB in Velox Express, Inc. vs. Jeannie Edge further highlights how this is certainly not true of the Trump-era Board. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email