National Labor Relations Board

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to our readers: “NLRB Reverses Key Rulings: Returns to Pre-Obama Board Test for Deciding Joint-Employer Status and for Determining Whether Handbooks, Rules and Policies Violate the NLRA – Assessment of 2014 Expedited Election Rules and Future Changes Also Announced.”

Following is an excerpt:

It should come as no surprise that recent days have seen a stream of significant decisions and other actions from the National Labor Relations Board as Board Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra’s term moves towards its December 16, 2017 conclusion.  Chairman Miscimarra, while he was in a minority of Republican appointees from his confirmation during July 2013 and as a new majority has taken shape with the confirmation of Members Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel, has clearly and consistently explained why he disagreed with the actions of the Obama Board in a range of areas, including the 2015 adoption of a much relaxed standard for determining joint-employer status in Browning-Ferris Industries, the standard adopted in Lutheran Heritage Village for determining whether a work rule or policy, whether in a handbook or elsewhere would be found to unlawfully interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to engage concerted action with respect to their terms and conditions of employment, and his disagreement with the expedited election rules that the Board adopted through amendments to the Board’s election rules. …

In Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co., decided on December 14, 2017, in a 34-2 decision, the Board has discarded the standard adopted in Browning-Ferris, and announced that it was returning to the previous standard and test for determining joint-employer status and returning to its earlier “direct and  immediate control standard.”  …

In The Boeing Company, also decided on December 14, 2017, the Board adopted new standards for determining whether “facially neutral workplace rules, policies and employee handbook standards unlawfully interfere with the exercise” of employees rights protected by the NLRA. …

Noting that the 2014 Election Rules were adopted over the dissent of Chairman Miscimarra and then Member Harry Johnson, and the fact that these rules have now been effect for more than two years, on December 14th, the Board, over the dissents of Members Mark Pearce and Lauren McFerren, both of who were appointed by President Obama, published a Request for Information, seeking comment …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “NLRB Acting Chair Dissents Point to Likely Changes to Board Election Rules and Employee Handbook and Email Standards.”

Following is an excerpt:

NLRB Acting Chair Philip Miscimarra has given the clearest indication to date of what steps a new Republican majority is likely to take to reverse key elements of the Labor Board’s hallmark actions of the Obama administration once President Trump nominates candidates for the Board’s two open seats and the Senate confirms. In each of these cases, Miscimarra highlighted his earlier opposition to the majority’s changes in long standing precedents and practices. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Can Your Corporate Social Responsibility Policy Make You a Joint-Employer With Your Suppliers? The NLRB May Find That It Does

Following is an excerpt:

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), which continues to apply an ever expanding standard for determining whether a company that contracts with another business to supply contract labor or services in support of its operations should be treated as a joint employer of the supplier or contractor’s employees, is now considering whether a company’s requirement that its suppliers and contractors comply with its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Policy, which includes minimum standards for the contractor or supplier’s practices with its own employees can support a claim that the customer is a joint employer. …

Employers are well advised to review the full range of their operations and personnel decisions, including their use of contingent and temporaries and personnel supplied by temporary and other staffing agencies to assess their vulnerability to such action and to determine what steps they make take to better position themselves for the challenges that are surely coming.

Read the full post here.

Our colleagues Adam C. Abrahms and Steven M. Swirsky, attorneys at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “NLRB Drops Other Shoe on Temporary/Contract Employee Relationships: Ruling Will Require Bargaining In Combined Units Including Employees of Multiple Employers – Greatly Multiplies Impact of BFI Expanded Joint Employer Test.”

Following is an excerpt:

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced in its 3-1 decision in Miller & Anderson, 364 NLRB #39 (2016) that it will now conduct representation elections and require collective bargaining in single combined units composed of what it refers to as “solely employed employees” and “jointly employed employees,” meaning that two separate employers will be required to join together to bargain over such employees’ terms and conditions of employment.” …

The potential for confusion and uncertainty is enormous. In an attempt to minimize these concerns, the Board majority stated that the so-called user employer’s bargaining obligations will be limited to those of such workers’ terms and conditions that it possesses “the authority to control.”

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Federal Appeals Court Sides with NLRB – Holds Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver Violates Employee Rights and Unenforceable.

Following is an excerpt:

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has now sided with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) in its decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, and found that an employer’s arbitration agreement that it required all of its workers to sign, requiring them to bring any wage and hour claims that they have against the company in individual arbitrations “violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act FAA).” …

The decision of the Seventh Circuit, finding that the Board’s view was not inconsistent with the FAA, sets the ground for continued uncertainty as employers wrestle with the issue.  Clearly, the question is one that is likely to remain open until such time as the Supreme Court agrees to consider the divergent views, or the Board, assuming a new majority appointed by a different President, reevaluates its own position.

Read the full post here.

For 2 days, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) heard from speakers on its proposed rules to accelerate the processing of union representation petitions and quicken the timing of elections. The speakers ranged from several labor unions, including the UFCW, SEIU, CWA and AFL-CIO as well as a number of trade associations, including National Federation of Independent Businesses, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and EBG client, National Grocers Association (NGA). The positions of the parties were largely split between the labor unions applauding the NLRB’s proposed rule on making elections faster; whereas, the trade associations and management attorneys emphasizing that the NLRB’s proposed rule was unnecessary and a solution in search of a problem.

EBG attorney, Kara M. Maciel, represented the voice of NGA on three separate panels. First, she argued that the NLRB’s proposed rule requiring employers – for the first time – to submit a written position statement within 7 days of the union’s petition setting forth the employer’s entire legal argument, or risk waiver later, is unduly burdensome and risks that the process leading to a pre-election hearing will become more adversarial and less focused on reaching a negotiated pre-election stipulation. Under current procedures, over 90% of petitions are stipulated to without a pre-election hearing, but under the NLRB’s proposed rule, employers could feel pressured to go to a hearing in light of the written position statement requirement.

Second, Maciel testified that the election date should not be accelerated from the current 34 day median to 10-21 days contemplated by the rule. “Hasty decisions are not good decisions” and she noted that “common sense dictates that the greater the time an individual has to inform himself, and to reflect upon and consider all aspects of a decision, the more likely the decision will be a true reflection of the individual’s interests.” NGA is concerned about the due process rights impairing an employer’s protected 8(c) rights under the National Labor Relations Act if there is not sufficient time to communicate with employees about a union petition for representation.

Finally, Maciel expressed concern over the proposed rules compulsory disclosure of employee’s personal and confidential e-mail accounts and phone numbers on voter lists. The non-consensual disclosure constitutes a gross invasion of employees’ privacy and opens employees up to potential use and abuse of their personal information.

The NLRB will now consider all the written and oral comments submitted by the public on the proposed rules; however, it is widely expected that the NLRB will adopt the rules as proposed. Following the rule-making process, it is likely that trade associations could seek to enjoin implementation of the rule through a court challenge. In the meantime, all employers should brace themselves for the rule and implement training and education for their management team on how to respond to union organizing.

For more information on NLRB’s two-day public meeting, please click here.

By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam C. Abrahms, Kara M. Maciel and Casey M. Cosentino

As previously predicted by the Management Memo on August 1, 2013 and October 30, 2013, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to amend its existing rules and regulations governing union elections procedures. If they look familiar when you see them, there is a good reason for that: you have seen them before.

As readers of the Management Memo are well aware, the NPRM is the latest development in the long saga of organized labor’s attempts to “fix” the representation election process in its favor. Most significantly, the Board’s current attempt only comes after having its more modest 2011 attempt struck down by a federal judge.

The present proposal is identical “in substance” to the Board’s original proposals first contemplated on June 22, 2011, and as such are more aggressive than the Rules ultimately adopted on December 21, 2011, and later struck down. The Board claims the proposed amendments are necessary to, among other things, facilitate the swift resolutions of questions concerning representation, simplify representation-case procedures, eliminate needless litigation, and consolidate all requests for review of regional directors’ determinations into one post-election request. However, if adopted as written, the proposed rules will radically up-end 75 years of Board practice and make it considerably easier for unions to organize employees and win elections.

History of Proposed Rule

The Board first contemplated the proposed amendments in a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 22, 2011. Following a period of public comment, the Board issued a final rule on December 22, 2011, that adopted some of the proposed amendments but deferred other more controversial aspects of the proposed amendments for further consideration. The final rule was immediately challenged in federal court. See Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. NLRB, 879 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21, 24 (D.D.C. 2012). In May 2012, the D.C. District Court struck down the final rule on procedural grounds. In response, the Board suspended the implementation of changes to its election representation case process.

Proposed Amendments to the Election Procedure

To the favor of unions, the proposed amendments announced this week would significantly change the existing procedures for union elections in the following ways:

  • Permit electronic filing of election petitions.
  • Require pre-election hearings to be held within 7 days after a hearing notice is served, shortening the time period between the petition and election.
  • Require employers to file a detailed statement of position on any and all issues involved in the petition before the hearing commences (i.e., within 7 days of first receiving notice of the petition). Failure to present an issue in the statement would constitute waiver of the issue in all future proceedings.
  • Grant hearing officers the authority to limit the issues to be heard at the hearing, depriving employers of their ability to litigate valid legal/factual positions prior to an election.
  • Defer resolution of voter-eligibility issues to post-election challenges until after an election, replacing the longstanding practice of having a pre-election hearing to determine such issues. This will allow unions to claim that some supervisors should be included in the bargaining unit, which could prevent an employer from utilizing them in the campaign to communicate its own position to the employees they supervise.
  • Grant hearing officers the authority to deny an employer the ability to file a post-hearing brief.
  • Eliminate an employer’s ability to seek Board review of a Regional Director’s rulings, which would also reduce the time between the petition and election.
  • Shorten the time for holding an election to as early as 10 days after the Regional Director’s direction of election (down from the typical 25 to 30 day minimum that now exists)
  • Require an employer to provide the NLRB with the list of voters’ names and addresses within 2 days after the Regional Director’s direction of an election instead of 7 days.
  • Require employers to provide the phone numbers and email addresses of all eligible voters as well as specifying each employee’s work location, shift, and classification. Currently, employers must only provide name and mailing address to the NLRB, which it then provides to the union. Since unions will use be able to use this information during the days before the election, it is feared that instances of organizers harassing and coercing employees will significantly increase.
  • Grant the Board discretion to deny review of post-election rulings. Currently, the Board is required to decide post-election disputes.

The Board’s False Pretenses and True Intended Harm of “Ambush” Elections

The Board asserts these election “fixes” are necessary to address alleged long delays in the representation process; however, such delays are rare. To the extent that the NPRM seeks to address election delays, objective data of NLRB elections conducted between 2008 and 2010 shows that such delays occurred less than 10 percent of the time. In fact, currently median time between petition and election is only 38 days and almost all elections occur within 56 days. The Board’s current proposal, however, could shorten that period to 10 to 21 days, which essentially eliminates the ability for employers to make a full and meaningful presentation of their position or employees to make a truly informed choice.

Typically, union organizers campaign under the radar for months before a petition is filed and unions wait until they believe that they have the support of the majority of the employees in a unit before they file a petition. Shortening the election period so drastically will erode an employer’s ability to respond to the union’s propaganda and communicate its position on union representation. Employees will vote without having the benefit of hearing the employer’s position. This contravenes the express purpose of the Act, which is to protect employee rights— not union rights and would gut the right that employers are granted by the Act to communicate their positions to employees. This one-sided campaign will almost certainly result in more election victories for unions and less real choice for employees.

Management Missives

It is with intention that the Board’s proposed rules will significantly alter the entire union representation election process in favor of unions. Although it is a proposed rule at this point, and the Board will be accepting public comment through April 7, 2014, with a public hearing that same week, it is likely that the final rule will be issued not long thereafter. To prepare for the Board’s “ambush” election rules, employers should promptly adopt any or all of the following strategies:

  • Examine your workforce for potential vulnerability to union organizing, including wage and hour violations or uncompetitive wages or benefits.
  • Review and update workplace policies that become relevant during union organizing such as solicitation/distribution, electronic communications, and social media.
  • Assess your workforce for potential bargaining unit issues like identifying who are supervisors and which employees share a “community of interest.”
  • Train your managers and supervisors on recognizing early warning signs of union organizing and responding lawfully to union campaigns.
  • Contact legal counsel with any questions or for any assistance with ensuring you are prepared to respond to an organizing campaign consistent with the proposed rules.

 

Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., at Epstein Becker Green wrote the December issue of Take 5, with five key action items for employers in 2014. Following is an excerpt:

It’s December, and human resources professionals and law departments are reflecting on the issues addressed in 2013 and giving thanks for incident-free holiday parties. But the big question is this: What issues should get priority attention for 2014 as part of a proactive approach to workplace issues and limiting potential employment and labor law claims? This month’s Take 5 provides a “Top 5″ list of action items to maximize the use of your time and resources for optimum results in 2014. …

  1. Consider Whether Your Organization Should Adopt Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Seek to Bar Class/Collective Actions in 2014
  2. Enhance the Accessibility of Your Organization’s Website to Individuals with Disabilities
  3. Ensure That Proper Exempt/Nonexempt and Independent Contractor/Employee Determinations and Updated Job Descriptions Are in Place in 2014
  4. Update Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreements to Better Protect Intellectual Property and Human Capital Assets in a High-Technology, BYOD, Mobile World
  5. Consider Key Employer ACA Issues for 2014

Read the full newsletter here.

By: James S. Frank and D. Martin Stanberry (Admission Pending)

On August 23, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) ruled that a hospital whose nurses are represented by a union does not have the authority to unilaterally implement an employee flu vaccination program because, in the Board’s view, ensuring patient safety is not a core purpose of the enterprise.  Virginia Mason Hospital, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 53 (August 23, 2011).  Specifically, the Board rejected the employer’s reliance on what is known as the “Peerless defense,” and held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) prohibits a hospital from implementing public safety programs without first bargaining over the proposal with a union that represents its employees.

As a general rule, the NLRA requires employers to bargain with union representatives over employee wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.  In Peerless Publications the Board established a three-part test under which an employer can act unilaterally when the proposed change goes to the protection of the core purpose of the enterprise.  Virginia Mason Hospital argued, and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) agreed, that it did not have to bargain with the union over the implementation of the flu prevention program because, under Peerless, the program is fundamental to a healthcare provider’s core purpose of preventing sickness.  The Board, however, with little explanation, overturned the ALJ and held that the prevention of sickness is not a hospital’s core purpose under the Peerless analysis, and that “Peerless was… essentially limited to its facts.”

In addition to creating ambiguity around what qualifies as a “core purpose” of the enterprise, the Virginia Mason Hospital decision complicates compliance with other federal employment statutes.  For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s (“OSHA”) General Duty Clause requires employers to provide a workplace free from serious “recognized hazards.” This means that if an employer or an employer’s industry recognizes a certain condition as hazardous, the employer is required under OSHA to take measures to protect employees from that hazard. If those measures are now mandatory subjects of bargaining, the employer faces a conundrum: implement the safety measures to protect against fines from OSHA but risk consequences from the Board, or bargain over the safety measures and risk a serious penalty from OSHA (or worse, a serious injury or illness to an employee or others).

In light of the Virginia Mason Hospital decision, employers with unionized workforces should

  • Understand that the unilateral implementation of policies or procedures affecting employees can in some cases draw an unfair labor practice charge from the union and litigation with the NLRB.
  • Document the “core business necessity” for any required unilateral changes in advance of anticipated union information requests.
  • Implement changes as needed to protect core business values.
  • Put the burden of requesting negotiations on the union by providing it with notice of any unilaterally implemented changes.
  • Consult your legal counsel before unilaterally implementing changes in the workplace that you believe might affect unionized employees’ working conditions, as the law in this area is rapidly changing.

For more information about the specifics of the flu prevention program at issue in the case and the decision’s potential impact on other federal employment statutes see Epstein, Becker & Green’s September 7, 2011 Act Now Client Advisory.

As you may know, the authors of this blog are attorneys at Epstein Becker Green, a national law firm with approximately 300 lawyers practicing in ten offices throughout the U.S.

On July 19, 2011, Epstein Becker Green’s Jay P. Krupin testified before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the Board’s dramatic rulemaking proposals to modify the representation election process. The firm was one of only a handful of management-side firms invited to provide testimony on behalf of clients at this first-ever NLRB hearing.

Vigorously arguing against the proposed changes, Jay asserted, among other things, that the “blatantly pro-labor” proposals to shorten the pre-election period would significantly hinder employees’ ability to make informed decisions. Jay further admonished the Board for improperly usurping Congress’s power to change federal labor law, and reminded the Board that the legislature has specifically refused to act on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have called for the changes that the Board now seeks to implement by fiat.

Read more about Jay’s testimony and watch a video of it on the Epstein Becker Green website.