As anticipated, in one of the last decisions before the end of Member McFerran’s term, the NLRB issued another important opinion. Reverting back to precedent that preceded a 2015 decision, the Board, in Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019), held that an
The NLRB continues to issue decisions on a variety of interesting issues. On October 10, the Board held, in LA Specialty Produce Co., 368 NLRB No. 93 (Oct. 10, 2019), that an employer’s strong confidentiality protections and limited media availability rules were lawful, and in so doing, clarified the
An employer’s duty to provide information to the union representing its employees is a frequent of topic of interest to labor relations practitioners because it is very easy to violate the law. For example, an employer’s assertion that the information is confidential is not enough to justify failing to turn
Employers can prohibit the use by employees of the names, social security numbers and credit card numbers of customers in furtherance of organizational activities. If this seems like it should have been a foregone conclusion, a recent case from the NLRB shows how the agency’s continued parsing of employer policies
The first day of employment is often chaotic. New employees must learn their way around the jobsite, meet (and remember the names of) many new people and otherwise familiarize themselves with working at a new job. Oh, and there’s the paperwork. Seemingly endless mounds of paperwork. New employees are asked
The precedents are falling fast. Last week the NLRB overruled the five decade old Bethlehem Steel decision, and now another longstanding precedent has fallen. The NLRB issued a decision overruling Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978), the case that held that witness statements obtained during an employer investigation of
The National Labor Relations Board’s recent decision in Hawaii Tribune-Herald, 356 N.L.R.B. No. 63 (2011) addresses several issues of importance to managers and labor law practitioners alike.
First, the Board held that employees may secretly tape record meetings with their managers that they reasonably believe could result in