Labor Relations Update

Tag Archives: coercive

Johnnie’s on the Spot; Board Reaffirms Standards for Employer Interrogations of Employees in Preparation for NLRB Proceedings

By Joshua Fox, Steven Porzio and Alexander J. Blutman on Posted in Investigations, NLRA, NLRB, Section 7, Unfair Labor Practices, Witness statements, Workplace Investigations
On the eve of the last day of Member Ring’s term, and in the third in a string of significant rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) (which we reported on here and here)—with potentially more to come—the Board, in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 24 (2022), affirmed the standards applicable … Continue Reading

Tesla and Musk Get a Shock from the NLRB – Tesla CEO Ordered to Delete Union Tweet and Eliminate Overly Broad Confidentiality Policy

By Michael Lebowich, Joshua Fox and Abigail Rosenblum on Posted in NLRB
In its March 25 decision, the NLRB unanimously held that:  (1) Tesla violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) after prohibiting employees from talking to the media; (2) Tesla did not violate the Act by calling employees into a meeting to discuss their potential unionization; and (3) Tesla must order CEO Elon Musk to delete his … Continue Reading

NLRB Seeks Comment: Rats, Banners and Neutrals, Oh My!

By Mark Theodore, Joshua Fox and Rachel Therese Gulotta on Posted in Uncategorized
An age old question under the National Labor Relations Act is what constitutes “picketing”?  By the Supreme Court’s definition, picketing is inherently coercive and may not be directed against a neutral employer.  An issue that has vexed employers for the last several years has been the use of stationary protests, such as inflatable rats and … Continue Reading

Unpaid Interns are Not Statutory Employees, NLRB Concludes

By Mark Theodore, Joshua Fox and Samantha Shear on Posted in NLRA, NLRB, Protected activity, Section 7, Section 8(a)(1)
The National Labor Relations Board recently held that a group of employees who were advocating on behalf of unpaid interns were not engaged in protected activity because the interns were not “employees” as that term is defined in Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.  In so doing, the Board reaffirmed its longstanding precedent … Continue Reading
LexBlog

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.

OK