Tag Archives: attorneys

A Clue to the NLRB’s Future Focus?

In regulatory action last week, the current board of the National Labor Relations Board not-so-subtly identified several areas where the Board wants to reverse course. Specifically, on October 16, 2018, the Board’s General Counsel released four advice memorandums issued during the Obama administration addressing several topics, including dress codes, replacement of striking employees, and video recordings of workplace strikes.

It is uncommon for advice memos to be released, especially those from prior administrations.  Most times, such releases happen after a matter has been resolved or the General Counsel has directed a region to dismiss a case. When memos are released, it is because the Board wants to draw attention to a trending topic or point of emphasis. In this instance, the Board released advice memos that were quite favorable to labor unions and workers:

  • In two advice memos involving Walmart dating to 2013, the Board’s General Counsel at that time recommended that the regional director bring unfair labor practices when the retailer (1) told a plainclothes security guard that he could not wear union clothing while undercover; and (2) prohibited workers from wearing union insignia shirts and then disciplined them for engaging in a work stoppage (which the General Counsel opined was not an unprotected sit-in strike);
  • In a different 2013 memo, the General Counsel found that Boeing acted unlawfully when it recorded union solidarity marches that happened on its property while it also had a rule in its employee handbook that blocked employees from using cameras on its property; and
  • In another advice memo issued in early 2017, the then-General Counsel concluded a California fishery committed an unfair labor practice when it unlawfully replaced striking employees by giving temporary employees permanent positions.

These memos are noteworthy since the current General Counsel, Peter Robb, and the Board at large are unlikely to support the positions espoused in the Obama era memos. For instance, in December 2017, the Board has changed course in the Boeing matter, concluding that the Board’s previous edicts on handbooks gave too much credence to employees’ rights and too little to employers’ interests.

Considering the reversal in Boeing matter, the fact that the General Counsel released the other advice memos on the same day potentially signals those advice memos do not reflect the Trump-era General Counsel or Board’s position. For that reason, employers may wish to challenge similar unfair labor practice findings in other settings.

Still, although these advice memos may be a relic of the Obama-era Board, another administration’s Board could renew the legal theories and positions contained in the advice memos. Thus, at the very least, employers should remain mindful of the views taken in the advice memos and consider potential protective steps.

John Getty*
jgetty@williamsparker.com
(941) 329-6622
*Admitted in Louisiana and Georgia

The NLRB Shifts its Strategy in its Attempts to Change the Joint-Employer Standard

After a failed attempt to change the joint-employer standard through legal decision arising out of a pending case before the NLRB, on September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register regarding its joint-employer standard. The proposed rule would overturn the standard set by the Board in Browning-Ferris, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) to determine if an employer is a joint employer. Under the Browning-Ferris standard, the inquiry turns on whether the alleged joint employer had the potential to control aspects of the workplace, either directly or indirectly, regardless of whether the employer actually exercised that authority.

The proposed rule would revert to the pre-Browning-Ferris standard for determining whether an employer will be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees. Under this proposed rule, an employer may be considered a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses AND exercises substantial, direct, and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. This would effectively reverse the Browning-Ferris standard and render indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority insufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

The 60-day period for public comments on this proposed rule began on September 14, 2018, and continues through November 13. After the Board receives and reviews the public comments and replies, it will issue a final rule regarding the joint employer standard. If issued without substantial changes, this rule would be great news for employers as this stricter standard is clearer, provides more consistency, and reduces the likelihood of an employer inadvertently becoming a joint employer.

Ryan P. Portugal
rportugal@williamsparker.com
941-329-6626

Seminar: What’s a Business to Do in the Age of #MeToo?

In light of all of the attention that is being focused on issues relating to harassment and the #MeToo movement, it is now more important than ever for businesses to develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment in the workplace.

Join us Wednesday, April 11, at the Lakewood Ranch Business Alliance’s upcoming seminar featuring Williams Parker board certified labor and employment attorney Jennifer Fowler-Hermes. Jennifer will discuss types of harassment and provide guidance on how employers can prevent, recognize, and respond to harassment.

WHEN:
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
7:30-8:00 a.m. Networking & Breakfast
8:00-9:00 a.m. Presentation

WHERE:
Keiser University
6151 Lake Osprey Drive
Sarasota, FL 34240

COST:
$10 Members, $20 Non-members

Register Online

MORE ON #METOO:
Catch Williams Parker labor and employment attorney Gail Farb discussing the #MeToo movement on a recent ABC7 news TV segment and roundtable discussion.

Intro Segment (Gail first appears at 2:31):

Roundtable Discussion (Gail first appears at 2:55).

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