Monthly Archives: December 2017

A NLRB Christmas Story

If the NLRB is Santa, then Santa just left employers a Millennium Falcon under the Christmas tree. One day after issuing two well-received pro-employer decisions, the NLRB overruled one of its most detested decisions from the last eight years, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016), that broke from long-standing board precedent and dramatically altered what constitutes a “change” in the terms and conditions of employment and thus, when an employer is required to bargain with a union. In the DuPont decision, the Board held that bargaining would always be required, even if the parties had not yet agreed to a contract, in every case where the employer’s actions involved some type of “discretion.”

However, on December 15, 2017, in Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161, the Board continued its Fast and Furious dismantling of many of the more controversial decisions issued during the Obama administration, by rejecting DuPont and returning to what had been long-standing board precedent. The majority of the Board opined:

We conclude that the Board majority’s decision in DuPont is fundamentally flawed, and for the reasons expressed more fully below, we overrule it today. DuPont is inconsistent with Section 8(a)(5), it distorts the long-understood, commonsense understanding of what constitutes a “change,” and it contradicts well established Board and court precedent. In addition, we believe DuPont cannot be reconciled with the Board’s responsibility to foster stable bargaining relationships. We further conclude that it is appropriate to apply our decision retroactively, including in the instant case.

*  *  *

In sum, and for the reasons stated above, we overrule DuPont as well as Beverly I and Register-Guard, and we reinstate Shell Oil, Westinghouse, Winn-Dixie Stores, Beverly II, Capitol Ford, and the Courier-Journal cases. Henceforth, regardless of the circumstances under which a past practice developed—i.e., whether or not the past practice developed under a collective-bargaining agreement containing a management-rights clause authorizing unilateral employer action—an employer’s past practice constitutes a term and condition of employment that permits the employer to take actions unilaterally that do not materially vary in kind or degree from what has been customary in the past. We emphasize, however, that our holding has no effect on the duty of employers, under Section 8(d) and 8(a)(5) of the Act, to bargain upon request over any and all mandatory subjects of bargaining, unless an exception to that duty applies.”

The retroactive application of this decision is of particular importance and may impact many disputes currently pending with the NLRB. This decision will also have great impact on management-union negotiations, and will provide employers greater ability to act without being required to ask for permission from a union. This is particularly true in the context of employers that do not have a collective bargaining agreement in place.

[I wonder if unions are feeling as if they are Randolph and Mortimer Duke in Trading Places, Hans Gruber in Die Hard (one of my favorite holiday flicks), or Ted Maltin in Jingle All the Way.]

In addition to overruling the DuPont decision on December 15, the Board also overruled Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). The Specialty Healthcare decision made it easier for unions to organize so-called “micro-units.”  With PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160, the Board reinstated its pre-Specialty Healthcare, community-of-interest approach for determining  “whether a proposed bargaining unit constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargaining when the employer contends that the smallest appropriate unit must include additional employees.”

We are well into Hanukkah and only a few days before Christmas, let’s hope that the NLRB continues to shower employers with gifts this holiday season and that this Miracle on 34th Street continues.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

The NLRB’s Holiday Gift to Employers

The new General Counsel for the NLRB recently issued a memorandum explaining that the NLRB would be moving swiftly to review several of the more controversial, and arguably anti-employer, decisions issued in the last eight years.  On December 14, thirteen days later, on the third night of Hanukkah, nine days before Festivus, and less than two weeks before Christmas, the NLRB took the first steps towards fulfilling this promise, when it issued two employer-friendly decisions that overturned two of the most controversial rulings of the NLRB under the Obama administration.  Happy Holidays, Employers!

First, in Hy-Brand Contractors the NLRB overturned the Browning-Ferris joint employer standard. When issued, the Browning-Ferris decision was shocking as it changed years of NLRB precedent. Through the Hy-Brand decision, NLRB has returned to the long standing test for joint employment that focuses on whether joint control is exercised (rather than merely reserved), whether such control has a “direct and immediate” impact on employment terms (rather than a merely indirect impact), and whether such control is not merely “limited and routine.”

Next, in Boeing Co. & Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, the NLRB overturned the somewhat paternalistic Lutheran Heritage standard that has been used to invalidate policies in employee handbooks if it was determined by the NLRB that employees could “reasonably construe” the policy as barring them from exercising their rights under the NLRA. In application, the Lutheran Heritage standard was often applied in a way that caused employers to opine that the NLRB thought employees were lacking in intellect or common sense if they were to construe the policies as chilling or prohibiting their rights.  On pages 3-4 of the Boeing opinion, the NLRB states that the new standard will be as follows:

Under the standard we adopt today, when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule. We emphasize that the Board will conduct this evaluation, consistent with the Board’s “duty to strike the proper balance between . . . asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy,” focusing on the perspective of employees, which is consistent with Section 8(a)(1).

As the result of this balancing, in this and future cases, the Board will delineate three categories of employment policies, rules and handbook provisions (hereinafter referred to as “rules”):

  • Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. Examples of Category 1 rules are the no-camera requirement in this case, the “harmonious interactions and relationships” rule that was at issue in William Beaumont Hospital, and other rules requiring employees to abide by basic standards of civility.
  • Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
  • Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example of a Category 3 rule would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.

Although this standard is somewhat complicated, it should provide employers more confidence in their ability to have appropriate policies for their workplaces, including those that have business justifications which outweigh potential adverse impacts on employees’ protected rights.

In addition to the foregoing, on December 12, 2017, the NLRB issued a Request for Information Regarding Representation Election Regulations and in doing so provided employers with hope that the 2014 “quickie election rule” may eventually be a rule of the past.

Hopefully, the holiday gifts from the NLRB continue through the season.

This post was co-authored by Gail E. Farb and Jennifer Fowler-Hermes.

Gail E. Farb
gfarb@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2557

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Proposed Changes to the Department of Labor’s Tip Pooling Rules

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“NPRM”) to alter limitations on tip pooling when an employer does not take a tip credit and pays the tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the federal minimum wage. According to a DOL fact sheet on the NPRM:

As the NPRM explains, since 2011, there has been a significant amount of litigation involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the federal minimum wage and do not claim a Fair Labor Standards Act tip credit. There has also been litigation directly challenging the department’s authority to promulgate the provisions of the 2011 regulations that restrict an employer’s use of tips received by its employees when the employer pays a direct cash wage of at least the federal minimum wage and does not take a tip credit. Moreover, in the past several years, several states have changed their laws to require employers to pay tipped employees a direct cash wage that is at least the federal minimum wage. This means that fewer employers can take the FLSA tip credit. The department is issuing this NPRM in part because of these developments and the department’s serious concerns that it incorrectly construed the statute when promulgating the 2011 regulations.

The proposed rule would allow employers to distribute customer tips to larger tip pools that include non-tipped workers, such as cooks and dishwashers. This would likely increase the earnings of those employees who are newly added to the tip pool and further incentivize them to provide good customer service. The proposed rule would additionally provide employers greater flexibility in determining pay practices for tipped and non-tipped workers. It also may allow for a reduction in wage disparities among employees who all contribute to the customers’ experience.

This proposed change does not impact tip pooling when an employer takes a tip credit toward the minimum wage requirement. Employers impacted by this proposed rule have until January 4, 2018, to provide comment on the rule. Comments may be submitted electronically at regulations.gov.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

Office Holiday Parties: Avoiding Adding Names from Your Company to the Naughty List

Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Michael Oreskes, Brett Ratner, Louis C.K., Charlie Rose, and Matt Lauer are a few well-known names that have already appeared on the naughty list for 2017. Although the Mad Men days of the sexy secretary sitting on Santa’s lap (the boss’s lap) with his arms wrapped around her while both are drinking a dry martini SHOULD be a vestige of the past, there are those that believe that “keep your hands to yourself” does not apply to them.  And, there are those that understand the “hands-off” rule, yet when under the influence of alcohol, find their inhibitions on the copy room floor.

Most employers and employees now recognize that in today’s world there is a different expectation as to how to behave appropriately at work then there was in, say, the 1950s or 1960s. Setting aside a discussion of power and how power can lead some to believe that these social norms do not apply to them (see the list above), employers should keep in mind that social norms that are generally recognized in the workplace sometimes are forgotten when there is a party, especially a party with libations. A holiday office party can embolden inappropriate behavior, from simple innuendos to unwelcome touching. The office holiday party can be a quagmire of potential employment issues, even beyond sex harassment including, but not limited to, workers compensation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and religion. However, this year, with stories of sexual harassment and abuse dominating the news, it is more important than ever for employers to consider the potential risks associated with any planned celebration.

As you prepare for your office party, consider whether alcohol should be available, as most issues arise due to someone bending the elbow a bit too much. If you do decide to provide spirits make sure you have someone (a designated responsible adult) that is watching to ensure that your workforce does not get too “relaxed” and cross the line. Possibly limit how much alcohol is served and make sure any employee that drinks a little too much has a ride home. Evaluate in advance whether the party is going to be mandatory or not. If its voluntary and employees do not feel compelled to attend, then employers are not required to compensate employees for their attendance. Review the plans for the party in advance to see if there are any activities that could be considered inappropriate or offensive to members of any protected class.  Finally, make sure that employees understand that the company’s policies and procedures, especially those related to conduct, are still in effect at the party. Most parties are benign and conclude with no real issues to speak of, but you don’t want to be the exception to the rule. You do not want your CEO or VP added to the naughty list.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558