Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo recently issued GC Memo 25-01, announcing her view that so-called “stay-or-pay” employment provisions are unlawful, and her intent to urge the Board to expand remedies for non-compete agreements that she deems unlawful.

Late last week, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135 (2024), which overruled the nearly 40-year-old decision in Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985).

On August 22, 2024, the Board ended its 50-year history of allowing consent orders in unfair labor practice cases.  In Metro Health Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio San Pedras, the Board held that: “in all pending and future unfair labor practice cases, the Board will not terminate the case by accepting or approving a consent order.”

As we discussed in a prior blog entry, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) ordered a novel remedy — consequential damages — against an employer in its decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021).  The current Board envisions this sort of remedy as covering a wide swath of potential financial repercussions against a party found to have violated employee rights, such as unlawful termination of employees.  This could, include, for instance, mortgage payments and credit card late fees.  With interest, these damages can quickly balloon to tens of thousands of dollars and change the risk and settlement calculus. 

The California Legislature recently passed a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring employees’ attendance at meetings discussing the employers’ political or religious views, including meetings held to address union activity.  The bill known as the “Captive Audience Bill” is backed by unions and opposed by some business groups that say the proposed ban is too broad and would infringe on First Amendment Rights.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or NLRB) of a federal district court’s decision to vacate a new joint employer rule that initially was slated to take effect months ago. 

On May 31, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) partially overturned a decision issued by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) in Absolute Healthcare d/b/a Curaleaf Arizona v. National Labor Relations Board.

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Starbucks v. McKinney and, in doing so, clarified the standard applicable to the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) requests for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

On April 23, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case which examines what test the federal courts should apply when considering whether to grant preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s what employers need to know while waiting for the Court to issue their opinion.

Update: On March 8, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Chamber of Commerce and struck down the NLRB’s new final joint employer rule. The opinion conducts a thorough review of the history of the joint employer standard and ultimately concludes that the Final Rule is contrary to the common law. The opinion critiques the Board’s rulemaking stating they failed to adequately address the disruptive effects of the new rule, resolve ambiguities, or explain how it will not cause piece-meal bargaining.  The opinion then leaves the previous rule from ...

The NRLB has hit another roadblock in its implementation of a new final joint employer rule (the “Final Rule”) as a Texas federal judge delayed its implementation until March 11. The Final Rule, which was supposed to take effect on February 26, would have made organizations liable for violations of the NLRA if they had direct or indirect control over the terms and conditions of employment of another firm’s employees. This change increases the potential of liability from franchising or contracting with third parties. To see more information on the implications of the Final Rule, see our previous articles here and here.

A few months ago, we wrote about the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) publishing its widely anticipated final joint-employer rule (the “Final Rule”).  The Final Rule overrules the NLRB’s 2020 joint-employer rule and broadly expands the definition of joint-employer under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). See Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status, 88 Fed. Reg. 73946 (October 27, 2023) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 103).   

On January 31, 2024, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or the “Board”) found that Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) violated federal labor law when certain of its managers asked employees whether they would be working their scheduled shifts or otherwise wanted to be scheduled for shifts during a planned strike that was communicated to management. Employers should take notice of the roadmap this decision provides to avoid similar pitfalls.

In an historic development for the financial services industry, a group of employees at a Wells Fargo branch bank in Albuquerque, New Mexico voted this week to join Wells Fargo Workers United, a grassroots labor union backed by the Communications Workers of America.  The successful vote marks the first time in memory that employees at a major U.S. bank have elected to unionize.  Workers at Wells Fargo branches in California and Florida have also filed for union elections in the past month alone. 

As we previously reported here, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) upended years of settled law in Tesla, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 131 (2022), when it held that employers cannot restrict employees from displaying union insignia (e.g., buttons, clothing, pins, and stickers) on their clothing at work, absent a showing of “special circumstances”—a nearly impossible standard for employers to meet.

This fall, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its case processing data for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY2023) – revealing a significant uptick in Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Charge filings and union petitions since FY2022. Specifically, the NLRB saw a 10% increase in ULP Charges filed since FY2022. This year over year increase is significant, as there was a 19% increase in ULP Charges in FY2022 itself. The agency received just 15,082 ULP Charges in FY2021 while in FY2023, employees filed nearly 20,000 ULP Charges. This surge in ULP Charges during the last few years illustrates the increased scrutiny on employers’ compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On October 27, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published its anticipated Final Rule modifying the standard for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  See Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status, 88 Fed. Reg. 73946 (October 27, 2023) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 103).  The Final Rule overrules the NLRB’s 2020 joint-employer rule and broadly expands the definition of joint-employer.   

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently adopted a Final Rule regarding representation-case procedures (“2023 Rule”).  The 2023 Rule substantially rescinds the 2019 amendments to the representation-case procedures (“2019 Rule”), and returns to the 2014 procedures (“2014 Rule”).  The 2023 Rule is effective for all representation case petitions filed on or after December 26, 2023.

A National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge dismissed the General Counsel’s allegation that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by not giving the union representing its employee notice and opportunity to bargain over the discharge of an employee it represented. Starbucks Corp., 02-CA-303077, et. al. (July 24, 2023). In doing so, the Administrative Law Judge teed up the issue for the Board to change the law on appeal. The law at issue is the Board’s prior precedent under Total Security Management Illinois 1, LLC, 364 NLRB 1532 (2016). The Board in Total Security created a new bargaining obligation which employers did not have prior to the case. Under Total Security, discretionary discipline is considered what is known as a “mandatory” subject of bargaining. Specifically, the Board held that prior to imposing serious discretionary discipline, such as a suspension or discharge, an employer must provide notice and opportunity to bargain with a union representing the employee at issue regarding what, if any, discipline to impose. Id. at 1536.

National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo recently issued a memorandum announcing her broad opposition to non-compete agreements.  In GC Memo 23-08, Abruzzo set forth her belief that, “the proffer, maintenance, and enforcement of [non-compete] agreements violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.”  According to Abruzzo, overbroad non-compete agreements chill employees’ abilities to exercise their Section 7 rights because the provisions interfere with employees' ability to:

• Concertedly threaten to resign to secure better working ...

On May 1, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board issued its decision in Lion Elastomers, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023), which will make it more challenging for employers to discipline workers who engage in abusive workplace conduct in connection with Section 7 activity under Board law.  The decision overrules General Motors, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), which logically and uniformly applied the Board’s traditional Wright Line burden-shifting framework to cases involving employee outbursts.  The Board’s decision reinstates a triad of “setting-specific” tests previously used to determine whether an employee’s opprobrious conduct forfeited the Act’s protection.  

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or NLRB) recently decided in Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC d/b/a WR Reserve, 372 NLRB No. 80 (2023) to impose extraordinary remedies upon an employer who violated a court order imposing certain collective bargaining obligations and committed multiple violations of the NLRA throughout the collective bargaining process. The extraordinary remedies included: the posting and distribution of a notice explaining employee rights under the NLRA (in addition to the standard notice that states the NLRB found NLRA violations, the violator will not commit those violations in the future, and the remedies); the reading of the notices in the presence of employees by the employer’s chief executive officer, or, if the employer prefers, by a Board agent in the presence of the CEO; and site visits by an NLRB agent to determine compliance for one year.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or the “Board”) Office of General Counsel (“GC”) released an internal advice memorandum on February 27, 2023, which indicates that the NLRB will seek to enforce the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”) against employers that allegedly retaliate against employees for having workplace discussions about racism. The memorandum—which concerned employment actions the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Inc. (the “Tyson Medical School”) took with respect to a faculty member/physician following various discussions about race in the workplace—sets forth an expansive interpretation of conduct that constitutes protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act so as to include general discussions “working to end systemic racism, including its impact at the [e]mployer.”

On March 22, 2023, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”), Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memorandum providing guidance in light of the NLRB’s recent decision in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). As previously reported, the Board in McLaren Macomb held that overly broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements violate employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”). The General Counsel’s memorandum—which is directed to the Board’s regional offices over which she exercises supervisory authority—seeks to clarify the scope of the McLaren Macomb decision, including: the types of provisions that may violate the NLRA; language that may be acceptable in light of the decision; whether the decision applies retroactively to previously executed severance agreements; and the potential applicability of the decision to supervisors. The memorandum is not legally binding, but it does give employers a more informed roadmap for how the Board initially will handle unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges challenging severance agreements.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) recently issued a decision which hints that changes might be on the horizon for how the National Labor Relations Act (Act) is applied towards educational institutions with religious affiliations. Saint Leo University Inc., 2023 WL 2212789 (2023). The Board’s assertion of jurisdiction over religious institutions reflects a balancing between the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights of an institution’s employees under the Act. University of Great Falls v. NLRB, 278 F.3d 1335, 1343-44 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The test the Board currently applies in determining whether it has jurisdiction over an employer with religious affiliations is found in Bethany College, 369 NLRB No. 98 (2020). General Counsel Abruzzo indicated her interest in replacing the Bethany College standard with a new standard in her Mandatory Submissions to Advice. NLRB Gen. Counsel. Mem. 21-04, at 5 (Aug 12, 2021).

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or NLRB) decided in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by offering furloughed employees severance agreements that contained confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. “A severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their [NLRA] rights, and that employers’ proffer of such agreements to employees is unlawful,” announced the Board. In rendering the decision, the NLRB overruled Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 369 NLRB No. 43 (2020)[1] and IGT d/b/a Int’l Game Tech., 370 NLRB No. 50 (2020). In those cases, the Board decided that employers did not independently violate the NLRA simply by presenting employees with severance agreements containing non-assistance, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement provisions that arguably restricted NLRA rights absent some additional circumstances.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recently revived a portion of an election rule promulgated by the NLRB during the Trump administration.  In 2019, the NLRB promulgated an election rule which modified several “quickie” election procedures established by the NLRB during the Obama administration in 2014.  The 2014 Rule sped up the union election timeframe, and the 2019 Rule aimed to address criticisms that the timeframe was too short a time in which to meet the various new obligations triggered by the filing of a union representation petition while also adequately preparing for the representation hearing. The AFL-CIO sued in 2020 to block the 2019 Rule.

On December 16, 2022, a National Labor Relations Board (Board) majority (Members Kaplan and Ring) issued a Decision and Order holding that an employer’s conduct did not warrant setting aside a union election where the employer failed to strictly adhere to regulations requiring employers to provide unions a voter list comprised of employee names and contact information (commonly known as an Excelsior list).

Dozens of business groups submitted comments on December 7 to oppose the National Labor Relations Board’s proposed joint employer rule, arguing it would interfere with business-to-business contracting and needlessly entangle companies in collective bargaining negotiations related to employees they do not control.

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) in American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022) decided that employers must meet a heightened burden to expand a voting unit sought by a union in a union election. The decision is a significant development because it makes it easier for unions to organize workforces. And it marks yet another reversal of precedent by the Board to the benefit of unions. (We’ve discussed prior reversals here and here.)

On November 4, 2022, the NLRB published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) inviting public comment on a proposal that would rescind and replace the current “Fair Choice and Employee Voice” rule which was adopted by the prior Board-majority on April 1, 2020.  Three distinct policies regarding election-blocking charges, voluntary recognition, and construction industry bargaining relationships are under consideration.  The Board’s stated intent is to return the law in each of these three areas to that which existed prior to the April 1, 2020 rule. 

On Monday, October 31, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued GC Memo 23-02, “Electronic Monitoring and Algorithmic Management of Employees Interfering with the Exercise of Section 7 Rights.”  Specifically, the Memo seeks to address the growing employer use of “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces.”  Examples of these technologies include wearable devices, security cameras, GPS tracking devices, keyloggers, and audio recordings.

On September 7, 2022, the NLRB released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) and request for public comment regarding its latest iteration of the joint employer rule.  The NPRM proposes to rescind and replace the current final rule, entitled “Joint Employer Status Under the National Labor Relations Act,” which took effect on April 27, 2020.

Yesterday, a California State Assembly Committee killed a bill that would have extended collective bargaining rights to a larger group of state employees – namely, legislative staffers. Existing state law excludes certain state employees from collective bargaining. The Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act would “provide employees of the Legislature the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations.” If passed, the bill would extend collective bargaining rights to nearly 2,000 California legislative employees. California’s Public Employment and Retirement Committee rejected the bill in a 2-3 vote this Wednesday, due to unresolved “procedural, legal, and administrative problems,” according to the Committee Chair.

Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) decided that employers cannot restrict employees from displaying union insignia (e.g., buttons, clothing, pins, and stickers) absent a showing of “special circumstances” in Tesla, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 131 (2022).  In connection with this ruling, the Board overruled Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 146 (2019), which analyzed the lawfulness of facially neutral work rules that regulated the size and appearance of such union insignia under a less exacting standard.  Employers with policies that address employee appearance, such as dress code or uniform policies, should review those policies for compliance purposes in light of Tesla.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a new partnership, which, in their words, will “better protect free and fair labor markets and ensure that workers can freely exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.”  Through a memorandum of understanding (MOU), the agencies have agreed to collaborate with the stated aim of advancing workers’ rights to obtain fair market compensation and to freely exercise their legal rights under labor laws.

On June 24, 2022, the NLRB sought an order forcing an employer who refused to negotiate with a certified union to pay back wages and benefits to employees that they allegedly could have earned absent the delay in bargaining during the time the employer appealed the NLRB’s certification of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative in federal court. In Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC, the General Counsel for the NLRB made the common allegation that the employer violated 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by refusing to recognize and bargain with a disputed but  certified union representative of its employees. What is noteworthy about this case is that Counsel for the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment urged the NLRB to “use this case as a vehicle to overrule its decision in Ex-Cell-O Corp.” and order the employer to “make the bargaining-unit employees whole for the lost opportunity to engage in collective bargaining.”

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) announced on June 21, 2022, that it intends to engage in rulemaking with respect to several subjects. One of those which was revealed to be a subject of rulemaking was joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (Act).

Earlier this year, the Office of the General Counsel (GC) of the  National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued an Advice Memorandum in Case 05-CA-281089 instructing Board Region 5  to issue a complaint alleging  that the employer, LT Transportation (a shuttle bus transportation provider), violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, when it banned nonemployee union organizers from boarding its shuttles because of their identity as union organizers. The GC also directed the Region to use the case as a vehicle to argue that that two Board precedents, UPMC, 368 NLRB No. 2 (June 14, 2019) and Kroger, 368 NLRB No. 64 (2019), should be overruled because, in the view of the GC, they narrowed employee rights set forth in two U.S. Supreme Court cases, NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 233 (1949) and NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956).

On April 11, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel urged the Board to revive the long-abandoned Joy Silk doctrine, which has not been in effect in nearly 50 fifty years.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) recently indicated an openness to revisiting the independent contractor standard employed by the Board when assessing whether individuals are covered under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).

The National Labor Relations Board indicated in January that it may reconsider its legal standard for assessing whether employer work rules violate the National Labor Relations Act, and invited amicus briefs on the subject.  Several business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, filed briefs on March 8, 2022 urging the Board to maintain its existing standard under The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).

The Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the National Labor Relations Board released a Memo of Understanding announcing that the two agencies will be collaborating “to strengthen the agencies’ partnership through greater coordination in information sharing, joint investigations and enforcement activity, training, education, and outreach.” The MOU took effect upon both agencies’ approval in early December and will remain in effect for five years.

On November 10, 2021, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum outlining employers’ bargaining obligations with respect to compliance with OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (“ETS”).

A recent memorandum released by National Labor Relations Board (Board) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo previews a Biden-appointed Board’s agenda and priorities. In the August 12, 2021 “Mandatory Submission to Advice” memorandum, General Counsel Abruzzo identifies three types of cases and subject matter areas that the General Counsel would like to “carefully examine.” These three types of cases and subject matter areas include: (1) cases where the Trump-appointed Board overruled past Board precedent, (2) “other initiatives and areas that, while not necessarily the subject of a more recent Board decision, are nevertheless ones [the General Counsel] would like to carefully examine,” and (3) “casehandling matters traditionally submitted to Advice.” Accordingly, General Counsel Abruzzo has instructed the Board’s Regional Directors to seek advice for cases that fall into these three categories.

Scabby the Rat is a familiar sight in disputes between unions and employers. Scabby, a giant inflatable rat with red eyes, fangs, and claws, is often placed outside the places of business of employers with whom a union has a labor dispute (the “primary” employer).  Recently, the NLRB again addressed the issue of whether such union protests can be directed against a “secondary” neutral employer who does business with the primary employer but who is not party to the underlying labor dispute.

On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a NLRB determination that a manager’s incorrect blaming of a union for discrepancies in an employee’s paid-leave time constituted an unfair labor practice. The pivotal issue was whether the manager’s statements had a reasonable tendency to interfere with employees’ labor rights. As discussed below, the D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB’s determination that the manager’s statements had a reasonable tendency to interfere with employees’ labor rights, reasoning that the manager’s misstatements were lawful expressions of the employer’s opinions.

With the ushering in of a new administration, several changes have quickly taken place at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Within hours of taking office, the Biden administration removed Trump appointee NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb and replaced him with interim General Counsel Peter Ohr.  (Ohr may only serve as acting General Counsel for 40 days, per the National Labor Relations Act, unless the administration submits a nomination to the Senate.)  At least one employer has already sought the dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge arguing that Ohr lacks authority to prosecute the case because Robb was unlawfully removed prior to the expiration of his term.

During the 2020 legislative session, Virginia passed several important employment bills. Perhaps none is more consequential than H.B. 582. Effective as of May 21, 2021, it permits the governing bodies of Virginia cities, towns, counties, and school boards to adopt a local resolution or ordinance authorizing collective bargaining and recognizing labor unions. The bill provides no guidance on how to create and implement a union recognition and bargaining process, leaving such decisions to covered localities. Consequently, the burden to fill in the gaps will fall to local ...

As we previously reported, COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the way representation elections are conducted.  From March 1 to November 16, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board issued 167 election decisions and, of those, only 2 manual elections have been directed to proceed in that time-frame.  This is a marked change in the Board’s longstanding preference for manual elections.  The overwhelming trend towards mail-in elections was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As originally reported in the American Bar Association’s Summer 2020 Labor & Employment Newsletter, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the inherent risks in holding large gatherings of people, the prospect of mail ballot elections has recently received considerable national attention. Typically, this attention is focused on how mail ballot elections might affect voter turnout or election results in state and federal elections and whether it might benefit one party over the other. So far, state and federal elections have generally continued to be held with inperson voting occurring at polling places, albeit with new safety measures in place.

In a pending NLRB case, an employees’ rights advocacy group, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (“NRTW”), filed an amicus brief supporting poultry plant workers seeking to decertify their union,  the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“UFCW”), even though there was a collective bargaining agreement in place between the UFCW and their employer. The facts of the case are complex. But, the issue presented in the amicus brief and reply from the union is simple: should the NLRB abolish the decades-old contract bar rule that prohibits an election to oust a union with a collective bargaining agreement in effect?

On July 27, 2020 the NLRB issued a supplemental decision involving a labor law successor employer, which unilaterally implemented terms and conditions of employment prior to commencing operations. The question presented was whether and to what extent the successor could take further unilateral action, free of the duty to bargain with the union. As discussed below, the Board determined that the applicable standard in such cases is whether the successor’s unilateral action was “reasonably encompassed” by the unilaterally imposed terms.

Over the past 40 years, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has grappled with the appropriate balance between an employer’s right to discipline an employee for abusive behavior and an employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity. Much to the dismay of employers, this balancing act has historically tipped heavily in favor of protecting an employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity at the expense of an employer’s right to discipline its employees for conduct such as using racial slurs while picketing, engaging in sexist behavior, or yelling obscenities at a supervisor while discussing wages. As a result, the Board has issued countless decisions finding an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) for disciplining employees who engage in objectively offensive, racist, and abusive conduct while also engaged in Section 7 activity.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued its third, and presumably final, decision in the lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s new election rules. In the latest order, the Court granted summary judgement in favor of the NLRB on the remaining counts of the complaint.

On June 12, 2020, the D.C. Circuit vacated a component of an NLRB decision that expanded employee rights under NLRB v. J. Weingarten. The D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB’s determination that a mere statement of fact constituted an employee’s requests for union representation.

In a dispute between Circus Circus Casinos, Inc. (the “Employer”) and an employee, the Employer, pursuant to OSHA regulations and internal policies, required the employee to submit to a medical examination prior to participating in a fitting process for necessary equipment, to ensure the equipment would not jeopardize the employee’s safety. The employee refused to take the medical examination and returned to work. The Employer suspended the employee, pending an investigation into the employee’s refusal to take the mandatory medical examination. At the investigatory interview, the employee stated, “I called the union three times [and] nobody showed up, I’m here without representation.” The Employer proceeded with the interview, which culminated in the employee’s termination.

In mid-May the NLRB established a clear rule regarding stray marks on ballots in union representation elections, eradicating years of convoluted and inconsistent precedent. The decision, which applied retroactively, resulted in a union’s failure to amass a majority of the votes and, consequently, a reversal of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representation.

In a dispute between Providence Portland Medical Center (the “Employer”) and Service Employees International Union Local 49 (the “Union”), the representation election was decided by the narrowest margin, ultimately resulting in 383 votes for representation, and 382 votes against representation. Included in the mix was a single ballot with a clear “X” in the “Yes” box and a dark diagonal line with a smudge mark in the “No” box. The ALJ and Regional Director applied Board precedent and both concluded that the smudge mark on the diagonal line in the “No” box was an “obvious attempt at erasure,” resulting in the ballot being counted in favor of representation.

Social distancing and uncertainty about COVID-19 have altered many aspects of daily life, uprooted traditions, and redefined “normal.” Unions are seizing this opportunity in a push for electronic representation elections.

On May 6, a coalition of fourteen unions (the “Coalition”) urged Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and Chuck Schumer to fund and direct the NLRB to establish a system and procedures to facilitate electronic union representation elections. The Coalition highlights COVID-19’s effect on the workforce in unemployment, underemployment, and dangerous working conditions, and submits that these effects highlight the need for union representation. Further, the Coalition asserts that the nature of COVID-19 makes in-person representation elections impractical, and, in conjunction with employer objections to elections by mail, it is exceedingly difficult for workers to form unions in the current climate.

An employer’s duty to bargain may change during emergency situations, and the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board released a series of case summaries Friday to help employers navigate the exceptions.

General Counsel Peter Robb summarized nine Board cases addressing both general public emergencies and emergencies particular to individual employers.  Robb did not make any declarations about how the COVID-19 outbreak and associated response might affect bargaining obligations, but the summarized cases provide good examples of bargaining exceptions that may or may not apply.

Employers with collective bargaining agreements and union relationships know they generally cannot make unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment.  But in an unprecedented emergency like the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak we are all facing, union bargaining obligations may be relaxed, either based on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or under National Labor Relations Board law.  As employers are forced to make ever more difficult operational decisions in the face of this emerging threat, here are some issues unionized businesses should consider when contemplating major workplace changes.

Consider Contract Terms First

 It goes without saying that employers with collective bargaining agreements should first examine the language of their contracts to determine whether they provide for any increased flexibility in decision-making during emergencies, such as a public health emergency.  If the terms of a company’s CBA specifically allow for increased operational flexibility during emergency situations, then the CBA should govern, and the employer should proceed accordingly.

The last few weeks of a National Labor Relations Board Member’s term can be a busy time.  This is especially true when a Member’s imminent departure will leave the Board without any Members from the minority political party.  The Board historically has avoided major shifts in precedent without the participation of both parties.

Last month was no different.  As the clock wound down on Democrat Lauren McFerran’s term this December, the Board issued a flurry of significant rules and opinions that pare back many of the most anti-employer precedents set during the Obama-era.  Issuing these rulings prior to Member McFerran’s departure allowed the Board to include her dissenting views in most cases.  But ultimately, the Republican-majority prevailed–resulting in good news for employers going forward on multiple fronts.  We summarize the Board’s “December to Remember” below.

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule modifying its representation case procedures.

The final rule takes effect April 17, 2020, and scales back—but does not completely undo—the changes to election regulations instituted by the Obama-era’s Board that have caused employers heartburn since 2015. Those changes effectively sped up the election process and cut down on employers’ ability to litigate many important legal issues prior to voting, putting employers at a disadvantage.

In an October Advice Memorandum, the Office of the General Counsel for the NLRB (General Counsel) concluded that a union’s continued actions of unlawful insistence are not a refusal to bargain if bargaining negotiations have ceased.

This summer, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued several pro-employer decisions.  Just last month, the NLRB issued two key decisions for employers, which are discussed below.

Worker Misclassification Not a Violation of the NLRA

 As we previously reported, the Board previously invited interested parties and amici to submit briefs in the case of Velox Express, Inc. (15-CA-184006) to address under what circumstances, if any, the Board should deem an employer’s misclassifying statutory employees as independent contractors as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

On September 20, 2019, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude undergraduate and graduate students who perform paid work for private colleges and universities in connection with their studies from the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act.  The proposed rule would prevent undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants from unionizing or collectively organizing.

On September 3, 2019, in First Student, Inc. v. NLRB, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. 2019), the court upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s application of the “perfectly clear” doctrine in First Student Inc. v. NLRB, 366 NLRB No. 13 (February 6, 2018).  The “perfectly clear” doctrine affects the right of a labor law successor, which acquires a unionized business, to set new terms and conditions of employment.  Thus, it can have an important impact on the economics of the commercial transaction.

A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board is another in a string of decisions where the Trump-appointed Board has attempted to rebalance a property owner’s rights with the rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act of those individuals who work on the property. In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center for the Performing Arts, 368 NLRB No. 46 (2019), the Board overruled its previous precedent and held that a property owner may prohibit Section 7 activity by off-duty employees of a licensee or contractor performing work on the property owner’s premises.

The National Labor Relations Board has issued the first part of its planned series of revisions to labor union election procedures.  The revisions arrive five years after the Obama-era Board’s controversial 2014 changes that created the so-called “ambush election” procedures.

On August 12, a three-member majority, over a one-member dissent, issued a 113-page proposed rule that would modify three of the Board’s election processes: (1) its handling of “blocking charges,” (2) the restriction on elections after an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union, and (3) the standard for contractually-negotiated recognition of a union in the construction industry.

In Johnson Controls, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 20 (July 3, 2019),  the NLRB adopted a new framework for determining a union’s representative status once an employer has made a lawful anticipatory withdrawal of recognition based on disaffection evidence that the union has lost its majority status. Specifically, under Johnson Controls, a union seeking to demonstrate that it has reacquired majority status must do so in a secret ballot election conducted by the Board, rather than in an unfair labor practice proceeding.

Last month, the National Labor Relations Board held that employers do not have to allow non-employees to use their cafeterias or similar public spaces for promotional or organizational activities.  See UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 368 NLRB No. 2 (June 14, 2019) (“UPMC”).  In so holding, the Board overruled decades-old precedent.

UPMC specifically involved “public spaces,” a sometimes-gray area in union organizing.  Public spaces are somewhat-private areas on employer property that are also open to the public, such as employee cafeterias or snack bars, as compared to fully-public areas such as retail floors.

The Board’s recent decision in Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp., 367 NLRB No. 122 (May 7, 2019)  highlights the differences that can arise as a result of the collective bargaining process in the terms and conditions of employment for employers with a divided workforce of non-union and union-represented employees.

In Merck, the Board majority reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the employer had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by offering a new, one-time paid holiday, “Appreciation Day” to all of its non-union employees to the exclusion of its union-represented employees.

Here are some factual background and key points of the NLRB’s decision in Merck:

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board reversed decades of precedent regarding a successor employer’s bargaining obligations following the asset purchase of an entity with a unionized workforce.

In a 3-1 decision released last week, the National Labor Relations Board reversed decades of precedent regarding a successor employer’s bargaining obligations following the purchase of an entity with a unionized workforce. The Board’s decision in Ridgewood Health Care Center significantly reined in the application of the “perfectly clear successor” doctrine, which requires a successor employer to maintain the status quo of its predecessor employer’s terms and conditions of employment.

On March 12, 2019, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to enforce a bargaining order against the University of Southern California (“USC”), finding that part of the order “runs afoul” with Supreme Court precedent, NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 (1980).

The case is Univ. of S. Cal. v. NLRB, Nos. 17-1149, 17-1171, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7203 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 12, 2019) and involves managerial versus non-managerial employees.  Though specific to the academic context, it represents a significant addition to Yeshiva and NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974), where the Supreme Court held that “managerial employees” are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

The Seventh Circuit recently upheld a local ordinance in Grande Chute, Wisconsin that banned all private signs on public rights-of-way despite challenges from a local labor union.

In 2014, the town of Grande Chute passed a zoning ordinance that banned all private signs on public rights-of-way.  Under the authority of the zoning ordinance, two town officials ordered a local chapter of the Construction and General Laborers’ Union to remove the labor union’s large, 12-foot inflatable rat, which, like other unions across the country, had become a longstanding feature of the Union’s strike tactics.  Specifically, the Union had placed the inflatable rat in a median across from a car dealership that it was targeting.

It’s now officially public: under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB)  General Counsel Peter B. Robb, unions may face greater scrutiny and a higher burden in defending against claims that they violated the duty of fair representation.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions owe this duty to its members and can be liable under Section 8(b)(1)(A) if they represent them arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel recently issued an internal directive regarding the manner in which NLRB Regions prosecute duty of fair representation charges against unions.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions have a duty of fair representation to the members of the bargaining unit it represents by engaging in conduct that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, particularly with regard to the processing of worker grievances.  Board law has established (and unions typically offer as a defense) that “mere negligence” alone does not amount to arbitrary conduct that would serve to breach the duty of fair representation.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a decision that serves as a reminder to employers of their bargaining obligations upon implementing changes to their business.  Rigid Pak Corp., 366 NLRB No. 137 (2018) involves a unionized company (“Rigid”) that manufactured and sold plastic products.  Rigid maintained an injection-molding division and a blow-molding division housed on different sides of its facility.  The injection-molding division manufactured open-head containers, lids, and crates while the blow-molding division manufactured plastic bottles.  In 2014, Rigid encountered various financial difficulties, and to address them, the company entered into a supply agreement to outsource its work to a third-party manufacturer.

On July 18, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Labor-Management Standards issued a final rule rescinding the so-called “persuader rule,” a controversial Obama-era regulation requiring employers to disclose advice received regarding opposition to union efforts.

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public employee unions may not collect involuntary fees from the public employees they represent.  Janus v. AFSCME, U.S., No. 16-1466, 6/27/18.  Here are the key points of the court’s decision:

Janus involved state employees represented in a bargaining unit by an Illinois public employee union.  The union was the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in a bargaining unit.  The union bargained with the State of Illinois for a collective bargaining agreement covering the employees in bargaining unit.  The union also engaged in other activities not directly related to the bargaining and administration of the collective bargaining agreement.

As we reported last December, the NLRB, in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), reversed its workplace rule standard under Lutheran Heritage.  Specifically, instead of assessing whether an employee could “reasonably construe” a workplace rule as barring the exercise of rights under the NLRA, the new test will evaluate the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights and the legitimate justifications associated with the rule.  The results of the new balancing test will place the rule in one of three categories: Category 1 (lawful work rules), Category 2 (work rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case), or Category 3 (unlawful work rules).

Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (Dec. 15, 2017) (“Raytheon”), is one of several decisions issued this month by the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) new Republican majority which reverse Obama-era precedent.  Raytheon overrules the Board’s decision E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) (“DuPont”), which limited the changes employers can make unilaterally in a union environment.  Raytheon clarifies the degree to which employers may rely on past practice to make unilateral changes to terms of employment once a collective bargaining agreement has expired, and, more specifically, offers welcome guidance to employers with regard to continuation of health benefits under those circumstances.

During a week that brought several notable decisions, the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling on Friday, December 15, 2017, overturning its controversial 2011 Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) (“Specialty Healthcare”) decision, which held that in order for employees to be included in a collective bargaining unit, employers had to prove the employees shared an “overwhelming community of interest” with one another.  The unions argued that the “overwhelming community of interest” burden was all but impossible to meet and effectively allowed unions to create “micro-units” of any number, group, or sub-group of employees the unions saw fit.  This in turn meant that an employer could be faced with negotiating collective bargaining agreements with multiple groups of employees who often shared the same schedule, workplace, and general terms and conditions of employment, but nonetheless were represented by different locals or divisions of the same or multiple unions.  In one particularly glaring example, the Board approved a union’s request for separate bargaining units in each of nine different graduate student departments at Yale University despite the fact that the union already represented existing, university-wide bargaining units.

On December 14, 2017, in a 3-2 decision along party lines, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) case.  This is a significant and long-awaited victory for employers grappling with unfair labor practice charges stemming from facially neutral workplace rules and signals the Board’s intent to retreat from regulating non-union activity.  Specifically, Boeing  rescinds the onerous workplace rule standard in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004) in favor of a new, more rational test.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a much-anticipated decision on Thursday, overruling its controversial 2015 Browning-Ferris decision that unions and employees argued drastically expanded the definition and scope of the Board’s joint-employer doctrine.  In Browning-Ferris, the Board departed from decades of precedent and held that entities who merely possessed—as opposed to directly and immediately exercised—control over workers would be deemed joint employers for purposes of assessing liability under the National Labor Relations Act.  The Board used the Browning-Ferris decision to expand its reach under the joint-employer doctrine to include, for example, companies that relied on staffing agencies and in some cases, parent companies that did not exercise immediate or direct control over a subsidiary’s workers, but had the potential authority to affect certain terms and conditions of employment.  The Browning-Ferris decision faced heavy criticism from employers as well as an appeal of the decision itself to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Published in Law360

The National Labor Relations Board has an 80-plus year history of administering federal labor law and regulating labor-management relations in the United States. Formed in 1935 by the passage of the original Wagner Act, the board’s primary obligations are to oversee the formation of collective bargaining units, to investigate and prosecute unfair labor practices, and to establish legal precedent through regulations and binding case precedents. In carrying out its responsibilities, the board is generally expected to act as a neutral arbiter of facts and ...

Join us for a complimentary webinar on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. EDT.

While proactive retail employers are responding to, and preparing for, union organizing efforts at their retail stores, many supply chain workforces remain vulnerable to targeted union campaigns. We will address the special circumstances and vulnerabilities of workforces at warehouses, distribution centers, transport and other supply chain operations. We will review some of the new dynamics in supply chain operations that attract union interest, and offer suggestions to reduce the risk ...

On February 14th 2017, Hunton labor partner Kurt Larkin will present testimony at the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions hearing on "Restoring Balance and Fairness to the National Labor Relations Board."  Kurt will discuss a variety of NLRB issues, including joint employer standards, ambush elections and micro unions.  The hearing will take place at 10:00am EST and can be viewed live here.

By now, most in the employer community are all too familiar with the NLRB’s controversial “micro-bargaining unit” standard announced in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011).  In that case, the Board announced a standard that in almost all instances results in approval of a union-requested bargaining unit, unless the employer can show that an “overwhelming community-of-interest” exists between the requested unit and some other part of its workforce.  This standard has proven difficult, if not impossible, for employers to meet, and the Board has pushed the standard into retail, manufacturing, and even wineries.  Now, the Board has introduced its micro-unit rule in higher education, and the results could be disastrous for universities across the nation.

Originally Published in Commercial Observer

It’s been a little over a year since the Real Estate Board of New York filed its opposition in New York’s Supreme Court to the City of New York’s Local Law 50, which prohibits owners of large Manhattan hotels from converting rooms to residential condominium units. Despite REBNY’s complaint being dismissed due to lack of standing to sue, the industry group isn’t backing down and filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 26.   The moratorium is set to expire in eight months, but there is a strong suspicion that it will be extended.

Continue ...

Originally published by Construction Business Owner

By now, the employer community is well aware of the wide-ranging implications of Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 N.L.R.B. No. 186 (2015) (Browning-Ferris)—a decision that upended decades of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedent and dramatically expanded the definition of “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On August 16, 2016, in Retro Environmental, Inc./Green JobWorks, LLC , 364 N.L.R.B. No. 70, 2016 WL 4376615 (August 16, 2016) ( Retro), the NLRB applied ...

Yesterday, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing  the DOL from implementing and enforcing its recent Persuader Rule pertaining to outside consultants’ (including lawyers) reporting obligations in the labor relations context.  You can see our prior blogs on this topic here.  The controversial rule was slated to apply to agreements or arrangements and payments made after July 1, 2016, but now is in limbo.  We will keep you posted as new developments occur.  A copy of the Court’s order can be found here

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced yesterday that he has filed a “wage theft” lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza Inc., and several of its New York area franchisees. The case is particularly notable in that Schneiderman is pursuing a joint employer liability theory, seeking to hold Domino’s liable for the alleged wage payment violations of its franchisees. This is the first time Schneiderman has pursued such a claim in a wage payment case, and the lawsuit potentially opens a new front in federal and state enforcement agency attempts to expand the definition of what it means to be a joint-employer.

One year has passed since the National Labor Relations Board issued its controversial “ambush” election rules, and as expected, the rules have caused a substantial reduction in the time between a union’s filing of a petition and the conduct of the election.

But in a surprise to many employers, the rules so far have produced virtually no change in the number of union election petitions and union victories. Many had predicted that the shorter campaign period would result in more unionization.

We previously have discussed that, as expected, the implementation of the NLRB’s ambush election rules in April 2015 considerably shortened the average time between the date of a petition being filed by a union and the date of election.  This change substantially impacts the employer’s ability to conduct an effective campaign in the event of a union petition.

As many in the employer community are aware, late last month the United Auto Workers won the right to represent a group of maintenance employees working at Volkswagen’s auto manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The union, which lost handily in an earlier bid to represent the entire plant, had asked the NLRB to sanction another election, but in a “micro-unit” of only the maintenance employees. To the surprise of many, the Board Regional Director handling the case granted the union’s request. In his view, the micro-unit was allowable under the Board’s controversial Specialty Healthcare standard.

In 2015 the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued two opinions, Cook Inlet Tug & Barge, Inc. and Buchanan Marine, L.P., each finding that tugboat captains did not qualify as “supervisors” for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). These decisions demonstrate a trend in recent Board decisions narrowing the definition of a supervisor.

Under Section 2(11) of the Act, a supervisor must have the authority to perform one of several enumerated functions, including “assigning” or “responsibly directing” employees, using “independent judgment” in the interest of the employer. In 2006, the Board issued three decisions defining these terms. Oakwood Healthcare, 348 NLRB No. 37 (2006); Croft Metals, Inc., 348 NLRB No. 38 (2006); Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRB No. 39 (2006).

On December 24, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) held that rules in Whole Foods’ General Information Guide prohibiting unapproved tape and video recording in the workplace violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

A rule violates Section 8(a)(1) if it would reasonably tend to chill employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights, including the right to engage in protected concerted activity. If the rule in question explicitly restricts activity protected by Section 7, it is automatically unlawful; if it does not, the rule violates Section 8(a)(1) only if: (1) the employees would reasonably construe the rule’s language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule was applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.

In Danbury Hospital (Case 01-RC-153086), after an initial election victory for the employer, an NLRB Regional Director ordered a second election as a result of the employer’s non-compliance with the new ambush election rules. In doing so, the NLRB again demonstrates why employers should be vigilant and proactive in preparing for an election long before the arrival of a union petition.

Under the new rules, employers must, within two business days after the approval of an election agreement or the issuance of a Direction of Election, submit a voter list of employees’ “available” personal email addresses and personal cell phone numbers. These requirements differ from the old election rules in that previously, the employer was only required to provide a voter list of the employees’ full names and home addresses within seven calendar days after the approval of an election agreement or the issuance of a Direction of Election.

As we have reported in this space, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) made waves several weeks ago with its highly controversial new test for determining if an entity is a “joint employer” of another entity’s employees. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). The Board has wasted no time in seeking to extend its new test to the health care industry.