Labor Relations

Subscribe to Labor Relations

As we previously reported, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) new “Persuader Rule” is set to take effect July 1, 2016. The rule is highly controversial because it requires employers and labor relations consultants, including attorneys, to file reports with the DOL regarding any arrangements to assist the employer in “persuading” employees regarding their rights to engage in, or refrain from engaging in, union organizing activities or to collectively bargain. Under the new Persuader Rule, many legal services that labor consultants and lawyers typically provide to employers will have to be reported to the federal government effective July 1, 2016. Examples of activities that will have to be reported under the new rule include:

  1. Planning, directing  or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives, including meetings and interactions with employees
  2. Providing material or communication for dissemination to employees
  3. Conducting a union avoidance seminar for supervisors and other employer representations
  4. Develop or implement personnel policies, practices, or actions for the employer that are intended to influence or persuade employees regarding their rights to engage or abstain from engaging in union organizing activities

…
Continue Reading Important update regarding DOL’S new “Persuader Rule”

In a 2-1 decision, the 8th Circuit on March 25th in MikLin Enterprises, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board enforced an NLRB Order finding that a Jimmy John’s franchisee violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it fired six employees for participating in a poster campaign designed to focus…

Thinking about having an employment relations consultant or attorney meet with your managers and supervisors for a union avoidance session? If so, you may want to have it scheduled to take place prior to July 1, 2016. According to a new rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), any union avoidance seminars conducted for supervisors or other employer representatives after July 1, 2016 must be reported to the DOL on government-issued forms.
Continue Reading DOL’s final “Persuader Rule” delivers another coup to unions

To avoid an award of liquidated damages in an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action asserting that a defendant willfully violated the FLSA’s overtime provisions, the defendant must prove that it “acted in subjective ‘good faith’ and had objectively ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that the acts or omissions giving rise to the failure did not violate the [statute].” FLSA defendants frequently therefore assert that they sought and followed the advice of counsel in assessing whether overtime payments were required under the FLSA, which results in an implied waiver of the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The scope of that waiver was subject of a recent United States District Court of the Southern District of New York decision in Foster v. City of New York, 14 Civ. 4142 (SDNY Feb. 5, 2016) and a related case De la Cruz v. City of New York, 14 Civ. 9220 (SDNY Feb. 5, 2016).
Continue Reading Lawyers’ FLSA advice may be discoverable

In prior posts (Are you a “joint employer” with your temporary staff supplier? The National Labor Relations Board says “Yes,” and ; NLRB poised to relax standard for establishing joint employment; may mean more union issues in franchising and temporary service worker deals ), we wrote about decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that expand the definition of joint employment and broaden potential liability for violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) joined the NLRB in making joint employment an enforcement priority when it issued an Administrator’s Interpretation and a Fact Sheet relating to joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as a Fact Sheet relating to joint employment under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Although the definition of joint employment under these acts has not changed, the DOL’s interpretation of the definition is expanding, and employers can expect that more of them will be subject to claims under the FLSA and FMLA in joint employment situations.
…
Continue Reading DOL joins NLRB in making joint employment an enforcement priority

2016 has arrived, marking the beginning of a year of political transition. While we cannot be certain what the upcoming Presidential election holds for 2017, we can expect to see at least seven employment law trends as we move through this year.

1. Increase in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) initiatives and enforcement

The Department…

Wait…. What?

Yes, in Shore Point Distribution Co., Inc., the NLRB’s General Counsel’s Office issued an Advice Memorandum yesterday (dated October 15, 2015) in which it stated that an employer did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain with union before installing a GPS device on an employee’s truck.

In March 2015, the employer became concerned that one of its employees was taking more time than other drivers to complete the same routes. It therefore hired a private investigator to follow and videotape the driver on his routes. The employer placed a GPS device on the employee’s truck to ensure that the investigator would be able to regain contact with the truck if he lost visual contact during the course of the surveillance. Over the course of his surveillance of the employee, the investigator personally observed the employee engaging in work rule violations including operating his truck in an unsafe and illegal manner, failing to follow specified delivery times, stealing time, and falsifying his daily log. Finally, after the GPS located the employee stopped in the employee’s hometown, he located the employee’s truck parked in the driveway at his home during work hours. Thereafter, the employer terminated the employee based on the investigator’s report. There is no indication that the employee was ever aware that the GPS device had been installed on his truck or that the employer had notified its employees that it might use GPS tracking for any reason in association with their employment.

Hard to see the NLRB’s General Counsel going along with this. Obviously, there are some other facts at play here.

First, the collective bargaining agreement contained work rules that prohibited drivers from “stealing time” and requiring that they adhere to Department of Transportation regulations mandating that drivers accurately account for their time on daily log records.

Second, the employer “has a practice of retaining a private investigator to follow an employee suspected of stealing time and using any results obtained through the investigator’s personal observations for disciplinary purposes.” The union was aware of this practice and “has no objection to it.”…

Continue Reading NLRB General Counsel Advice Memo absolves employer for not bargaining over use of GPS devices to track employee

Back in September of last year, we reported on an NLRB decision finding that a Connecticut sports bar, Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, had unlawfully terminated two employees – one of whom commented on a former employee’s criticism of the employer’s handling of the tax withholding on employee paychecks and the other who clicked “Like” in response to that comment. This past week, the Second Circuit, on Triple Play’s petition for review, upheld the Board’s decision, in a case captioned Three D, LLC, d/b/a Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille v. NLRB.

In its decision, the Second Circuit held that the employees’ respective comment and “Like” were protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act because they both related to ongoing employee concerns over the employer’s workplace tax withholding and their resulting tax liabilities. The court also concluded that the employees’ Facebook communications were not so disloyal or defamatory as to lose the protection of the Act. Specifically, the court found that the employees did not disparage the employer’s products or services and their communications were not “maliciously untrue.”

The court was not swayed by any profanity contained in the one employee’s comment because it was not made in the presence of or directed at customers and did not reflect the employer’s brand. According to the court, accepting Triple Play’s argument that the Facebook discussion took place “in the presence of customers” could lead to the undesirable result of chilling virtually all employee speech online. “Almost all Facebook posts by employees have at least some potential to be viewed by customers.” As a result, the court upheld the Board’s order requiring the employer to offer reinstatement and full back pay to the terminated employees.…

Continue Reading Second Circuit upholds NLRB finding that Triple Play Sports Grille unlawfully terminated employees for Facebook postings

Following a decision last week by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), it is likely that all companies that use temporary staff workers will be considered a “joint employer” with the temporary staffing agency if efforts are made by a union to organize the temporary workers.

The use of temporary staff is a significant part of the business plan for many companies. Although it was in the past a strategy used primarily by manufacturing companies, temporary staffing is now common across many industries, including warehousing, logistics and service. The potential advantages to using temporary staff include off-loading human resource responsibilities, lowering unemployment and workers compensation expenses, tax withholding responsibility, and many of the other attendant costs of the employment relationship.

Companies who use temporary staff (I will call them “user” companies here) often take careful measures to limit the risk of being determined a joint employer with the company providing temporary staff. Those steps include having the temporary staffing company (I will call them “temporary staff providers” here) be responsible for all hiring, discipline, and termination decisions. In some cases, the user company relies on the temporary staff provider for on-site supervision and sometimes even human resources support on-site. In most cases, the user company has an indirect impact on wages of the temporary staff by virtue of the negotiated labor rate but, in almost all cases, all other employment benefits are provided solely by the temporary staff provider.

What if a union targets the temporary workers at a user company’s workplace for organization? If the union is successful, who is the “employer” required to recognize and bargain with the union? Until recently, the answer was pretty easy. As long as the user company was careful not to exert direct control over the terms and conditions of employment of the temporary workers, then the employer required to recognize and bargain with the union was the temporary staff supplier only. Efforts made by unions to argue for a joint employment determination were usually unsuccessful. All that has changed.

What does the case say?

Last Thursday, in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., the NLRB decided that the user company and the temporary staff supplier are a joint employer. The user company was Browning-Ferris (BFI), which operates a recycling facility. The temporary staff supplier was Leadpoint. The Teamsters Union tried to organize a group of 240 Leadpoint employees working at the BFI facility. The temporary staff performed work different than that performed by the BFI regular workforce. The BFI regular workforce was already unionized. Leadpoint provided on-site supervision and an on-site human resource representative. Leadpoint also kept control of hiring decisions, subject to certain broad criteria imposed by BFI. When there were on-site misconduct issues involving temporary staff people, BFI made Leadpoint aware and Leadpoint was responsible to investigate and take action, though BFI retained the right to discontinue the assignment of any of the temporary staffers. In other words, Browning-Ferris did all “right” things in its effort to remain separate from Leadpoint.
Continue Reading Are you a “joint employer” with your temporary staff supplier? The National Labor Relations Board says “Yes.”

In April 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented a rule that effectively speeds up the time in which union representation elections occur. The process toward a union representation election typically starts when the union petitions the NLRB to conduct an election. During the months since the rule took effect, the time between petition filing and the representation election has been about 23 days. That is down 39.5 percent from the 38 day average that was common before the rule went into effect. As long as the rule remains in effect, there is every reason to expect this trend of quicker elections will continue.

The employer community has great concerns about the NLRB rule and the resulting reduction in the time for union representation elections. It is often referred to by employer groups and representatives as the “quickie election rule” or the “ambush election rule.” The time between petition filing and election is a crucial period for employer communication to employees. When a union files a petition for representation election, the union is usually at the peak of its support among employees. Between petition filing and election, the union’s representatives will actively campaign for employee votes in the upcoming election. Employers have the same right to communicate lawful and honest information to employees in an effort to influence them to vote to stay non-union. An abbreviated time for communication makes it much more difficult for the employer to convey the message, especially in a large workforce. Therefore, shortening the time between petition and election may give unions an advantage. Although, it is interesting to note that in the months since the rule took effect the union percentage win rate in elections has been about 62 percent, which is very close to the overall union win rate in elections for the past few years.
Continue Reading Another Federal District Court upholds NLRB expedited election rules