Labor Relations

Subscribe to Labor Relations

Ohio Governor Michael DeWine and Lt. Governor Jon Husted recently announced that the state has expanded unemployment compensation benefits to workers and businesses impacted by COVID-19. By way of background, Ohio’s unemployment insurance system provides 50 percent of a qualifying worker’s former average weekly pay, subject to caps based on the number of dependents in the household.

Governor DeWine has issued an executive order that expands unemployment benefits related to COVID-19. Moreover, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) has published a series of questions and answers related to the order. Here are the highlights:…
Continue Reading Ohio expands unemployment compensation protections in response to COVID-19 pandemic

Continuing a trend towards reversal of case precedent, the NLRB has issued two decisions important to companies with union contracts. In Valley Hospital Medical Center, the Board considered whether an employer has the right to stop making dues deductions from employee paychecks after a collective bargaining agreement with the union expires. Dues deductions in collective bargaining agreements are common. Unions bargain aggressively for them because these provisions require the employer to automatically deduct union dues from employee paychecks and submit them directly to the union.
…
Continue Reading NLRB shift on two important issues for union companies

On Saturday, March 14 the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), by a bipartisan vote of 363-40. The bill now proceeds to the Senate, which is currently on recess but will return this week. The bill could be voted on as early as today. President Trump has signaled his approval for the bill, so it is likely to pass Congress in some form or fashion. The bill will take effect fifteen days after enactment. It will remain in effect until it expires under a sunset provision on December 31, 2020.
…
Continue Reading HR 6201 could provide employees with COVID-19 relief while changing the landscape of labor and employment law for employers

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) governs certain rights of workers in union and non-union workplaces. NLRB cases impact such things as employee rights to complain about working conditions on behalf of oneself and others and the right to communicate to co-workers about interest in unionization. As a result, trends in NLRB decisions are important to all companies, union and non-union.
…
Continue Reading Active NLRB is reversing many trends; union and non-union companies need to be aware

The National Labor Relations Board has issued a final rule governing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. This rule, published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2020, will take effect in late April 2020.

To be a joint employer under the final rule, a business must possess and exercise substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees.…

Continue Reading The new NLRB joint-employer rule

Cropped shot of a man and woman completing paperwork together at a deskEffective Dec. 20, 2021, the federal Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act will prohibit federal contractors from inquiring-either directly or through a background screening process-into an applicant’s criminal background until after the contractor extends a conditional job offer to the applicant. The law will only impact those applicants seeking employment in positions related to…

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) invited interested parties to submit feedback about when an employee’s offensive or inappropriate workplace comments should lose the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, the NLRB is inviting employers and other parties to submit briefing about whether it should reconsider its standards for determining whether Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees who make “profane outbursts and offensive statements of a racial or sexual nature…during the course of otherwise protected activity.” By way of background, Section 7 of the NLRA gives employees the right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” That can include raising work-related disputes or complaints. This right extends to all non-management employees, not just those represented by a union. But what if the employee raising specomplaints uses obscene or otherwise offensive language directed at a supervisor? In some NLRB cases, employee outbursts that have included offensive language have been shielded from punishment by the employer because the language was considered a part of protected speech.
Continue Reading NLRB invites businesses to provide feedback on when an employee’s offensive comments should lose the protection of federal labor law

On Sept. 6, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) granted a significant win to employers, ruling that businesses can lawfully limit the rights of nonemployee union supporters to access company property that is otherwise open to the public. In a 3-1 decision, the Board ruled that Kroger did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it removed nonemployee union supporters from the parking lot of a Kroger store. The decision overruled a 2016 ruling by an NLRB administrative judge that Kroger had illegally barred two nonemployee representatives of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union from petitioning customers in the parking lot of a store in Portsmouth Virginia. The nonemployee union representatives were there to solicit customer support for the union’s protest over a decision to close the store and relocate employees to a different location 25 miles away.

The administrative law judge who initially heard the case ruled in favor of the union, noting that the grocery store’s managers had previously allowed several charitable entities to distribute literature and sell goods outside the store’s entrance. Applying Sandusky Mall Co., 329 NLRB 618 (1999), the administrative law judge held that Kroger violated the NLRA and discriminated against the union by regularly granting access to company property to civic, charitable and promotional activities by nonemployees while prohibiting nonemployee union representatives from petitioning on company property.
Continue Reading NLRB sides with Kroger’s action to remove union representatives from company property