As we discussed here, the National Labor Relations Board decided early this month that it would temporarily suspend the remedial notice-posting and emailing requirement at facilities shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic until after reopening and a return of a “substantial complement” of employees. See Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB 68 (2020). The … Continue Reading
As many states throughout the country have begun implementing phased reopening plans, so too has the NLRB begun to return to a semblance of normality. Representation elections resumed in early April, and the NLRB recently provided clarification as to how representation hearings should be conducted. In the last few weeks the agency has counted ballots … Continue Reading
One area of controversy over the years is the NLRB’s attempt to interpret markings on representation ballots that are not clearly “yes” or “no.” This has given rise to a number of tests for divining voter intent. Overruling decades of conflicting precedent involving the interpretation of a voter’s intent, the NLRB issued a key decision … Continue Reading
As most of the country’s workforce continues to adjust to the new realities of social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and limited travel, the practice of law and the forums for adjudicating disputes have shifted to video and telephonic hearings to ensure that the wheels of justice continue to turn notwithstanding COVID-19. The NLRB has been no … Continue Reading
The Board continues to issue decisions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, while acknowledging that business operations around the country are far from “business as usual.” The agency is up and running. Representation elections vote counts are being conducted via video conference as are hearings. The remedy stage of unfair labor practice proceedings also has caught up … Continue Reading
We have often reported about how an employer’s failure to adequately respond to an information request made by a union can lead to unfair labor practice charges and litigation. Sometimes a union makes an information request for strategic reasons, not for any representational reason. Sometimes, an employer’s response can lead to further complications. The same … Continue Reading
In maintaining business as usual as best it can amidst the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, the Board recently decided an issue concerning limitations on employer campaign tactics, and an employer’s limits in restricting discussions with employees related to terms and conditions of employment. In First American Enterprises d/b/a Heritage Lakeside, 369 NLRB No. 54 (2020), the … Continue Reading
As we reported here, on April 1, 2020, the NLRB published its final rule making three amendments to its rules and regulations governing union elections (relating to the Board’s blocking charge policy; timing and notice requirements attendant to voluntary recognition; and 9(a) recognition in the construction industry). The rule was expected to be effective as … Continue Reading
In the past, we frequently have discussed protected activity and how an employee’s profane outburst or deliberate conduct may render otherwise protected activity, “unprotected.” However, as this recently issued decision reinforces, the Board is usually quite tolerant of impulsive behavior and outbursts in response to legitimate grievances over the terms and conditions of employment. Plant … Continue Reading
On March 19, 2020, the NLRB announced that it was suspending all representation elections through April 3, 2020. The Board stated that the suspension was necessary to ensure the safety of its own employees, as well as those members of the public involved in the elections. Today, the Board announced that it will not extend … Continue Reading
Although, like everyone else, the personnel at the NLRB have been consumed with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily operations, including the ability of its Regional Offices to function and serve the public, the Board nevertheless continues moving forward on non-COVID-19 matters as well. On March 31, 2020, the NLRB announced it had … Continue Reading
Mid-sized businesses (defined as 500 to 10,000 employees) impacted by the Coronavirus may be able to obtain relief loans under the COVID-19 stimulus law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), but only if non-union employers agree not to oppose the unionization of their workforce for the term of the loan, and … Continue Reading
On March 27, 2020, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued Memorandum GC-20-04 to provide guidance to NLRB regional offices and the general public. Acknowledging that “we are [currently] in an unprecedented situation,” the General Counsel provided summaries of several NLRB decisions discussing how, if at all, an employer’s duty to bargain under NLRA Section 8(d) … Continue Reading
The NLRB continues to operate during the novel coronavirus crisis. Regional offices are largely working remotely as is the rest of the country. The Board itself continues to issue decisions, albeit at a slower pace than usual. On February 4, 2019, the NLRB invited interested parties to file briefs addressing whether the agency should decline … Continue Reading
The NLRB announced today in a press release that “[d]ue to the extraordinary circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” all representation elections, including mail ballot elections, will be suspended for the next two weeks, through and including April 3, 2020. This means that any representation elections previously scheduled from now through April 3, 2020 will … Continue Reading
When it comes to an unfair practice allegation asserting an employer’s statement is unlawful, words matter. And, so does context. Under NLRB case law, the actual employer statements are evaluated as well as the overall context the words were uttered to determine whether there exists coercion. Recently, the NLRB addressed an unusual case where an … Continue Reading
Applying the facially neutral work rule test laid out in Boeing (see here), the Board recently reversed an Administrative Law Judge decision, concluding that the employer maintained lawful workplace rules restricting employee use of (i) cell phones in commercial vehicles, (ii) the company email server for purposes not related to work, and (iii) the disclosure … Continue Reading
On February 7, 2020 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) sued the State of Oregon in federal court seeking a declaratory judgement to invalidate a state statute that protects employees who refuse to attend lawful compulsory meetings held by employers during organizing campaigns from adverse employment action. These meetings, pejoratively referred to as “captive audience” … Continue Reading
In its January 31, 2020 decision in Phillips 66, 369 NLRB No. 13 (January 31, 2020) the Board reversed a number of findings of unfair labor practices found by an Administrative Law Judge related to the employer’s conduct during organizing and subsequent bargaining. Background In November 2011, the union filed a petition to represent the … Continue Reading
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, also known as the “PRO Act”. The legislation (which can be viewed here), passed mostly along party lines, would provide sweeping changes to the NLRA that would enhance greatly the ability of unions to organize employees and … Continue Reading
Similar to other disagreements between the NLRB and D.C. Circuit (see here for a recent example ), a tension developed during the last several years regarding the appropriate standard to determine whether teachers at religious schools are covered by the NLRA and within the Board’s jurisdiction, or whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment … Continue Reading
In prior posts, we’ve discussed how information requests in the context of labor relations can be deceptively complex to comply with for employers. We’ve seen how an employer’s assertion of confidentiality, standing alone, is not enough to justify denying a request. Sometimes, albeit rarely, the NLRB has determined the subject of some requested information is … Continue Reading
Shamrock Foods Company, 369 N.L.R.B. No. 5 (January 7, 2020) is the latest in the National Labor Relations Board’s series of employer-friendly decisions. In Shamrock Foods, the Board held that an employer did not violate Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by offering and entering into a settlement agreement with an … Continue Reading
In yet another end-of-2019 decision overruling significant NLRA precedent, the Board reverted to the less stringent Spielberg / Olin standard for determining whether to defer to arbitration decisions in the context of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) unfair labor practice cases. See United Parcel Service, Inc., 369 NLRB 1 (2019). The Board issued this decision unanimously, … Continue Reading
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.