Showing 16 posts in Section 7.

The Fight for $15 and the NLRB

July 11, 2018 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

In-N-Out Burger, Incorporated (In-N-Out) found itself on the wrong side of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unfair labor practice proceedings for prohibiting its employees from "wearing any type of pin or stickers" on their uniforms. The Fifth Circuit, in In-N-Out Burger, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board (No. 17-60241, decided July 6, 2018), upheld a NLRB finding that In-N-Out violated Section 8(a)1 of the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting its employees from wearing a "Fight for $15" button and for maintaining an overly broad uniform policy. More ›

Lawful, Unlawful, or It Depends? NLRB Issues New Guidance on Employer Policies Affecting Section 7 Rights

June 22, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel issued Memorandum GC-18-04 providing guidance on handbook rules in light of the Board’s Boeing Company decision. In Boeing, the Board reevaluated when a seemingly neutral work rule, handbook rule, or employment policy violates the rights of workers granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In doing so, it adopted a new test balancing the negative impact a given rule may have on an employee’s ability to exercise his or her Section 7 rights versus the employer’s right to maintain a disciplined and productive workplace. It also laid out three categories of rules: those that are always lawful, those that are usually always unlawful, and those it depends-type rules falling into the middle category. The GC’s guidance sorts common workplace policies into these three buckets. More ›

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 ›

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 ›

Tilting The Battlefield: NLRB Makes it Easier for Unions to Challenge use of Permanent Replacements

September 7, 2016 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

The National Labor Relations Board ("Board") recently denied review of its ruling in American Baptist Homes. That ruling upended the decades-old bright line test that an "independent unlawful purpose" is established only when an employer’s hiring of permanent replacements is unrelated to, or extrinsic to, the strike.  Specifically, the Board ruled the General Counsel is not required to show an employer was motivated by an unlawful purpose extrinsic to the strike; he need only show the hiring of permanent replacements was "motivated by a purpose prohibited by the Act." What constitutes a "prohibited purpose" is open to interpretation, and American Baptist Homes strongly signals employers could be exposed to unfair labor practice charges if there is any allegation that the use of permanent replacements is motivated by an intent to interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives