Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

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.

On January 19, 2016, a series of bills in New York commonly known as the Women’s Equality Act will take effect. These laws are intended to help achieve pay equity, strengthen human trafficking laws and protections for domestic violence victims, and end pregnancy discrimination in all workplaces, by, among other things:

Please join us via webinar for a dynamic roundtable discussion with our distinguished panel of experts who will share their thoughts on changes in the law, what steps a company should take to comply with the new law and issues employers should consider as they evaluate their employee compensation.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT
(2:00 p.m. ET – 3:00 p.m. ET)

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).

As we previously reported, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a proposed rule expected to significantly increase the number of employees who are eligible for overtime. Most notably, the proposed rule seeks to increase the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers from the current level of $23,660 to $50,440.

In a December 16, 2015 interview with Bloomberg BNA, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez stated he was “confident” that the final rule would be “out by the spring of next year.” This prediction falls ahead of other recent DOL estimations. In its latest regulatory agenda, released in November, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division estimated that the final rule would be published in July of 2016. And while speaking on a recent panel at the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law conference in Philadelphia, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith predicted that the new rule was not likely to appear before “late 2016.”

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.

For years, there has been nearly universal agreement among the courts that managers do not engage in “protected activity” for retaliation claim purposes under most employment laws when they raise concerns about compliance issues in the regular course of performing their job duties. The traditional reasoning held that a manager whose job includes evaluating and/or reporting compliance issues, and who does so in furtherance of his or her job duties, should not become cloaked in anti-retaliation protection for merely doing the job he or she is employed to do. Instead, to engage in protected activity, the manager must step outside his or her role as a manager and become adversarial to the employer. The so-called “manager rule” has been consistently used by courts to reject retaliation claims under various employment statutes by human resources professionals and supervisors who report employment-related compliance issues related to other employees.

On November 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to enforce an arbitration clause in an employee handbook on the grounds that the employee never agreed to be contractually bound by the handbook, and that a court can only compel arbitration where it is satisfied that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. This case, Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., should serve as a warning to employers to review their employee handbooks to be sure that provisions, like an arbitration clause, will be enforceable.

Please join us via webinar for a dynamic roundtable discussion with our distinguished panel of experts who will share their thoughts on changes in the law, what steps a company should take to comply with the new law and issues employers should consider as they evaluate their employee compensation.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT
(2:00 p.m. ET – 3:00 p.m. ET)

On December 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania permitted a plaintiff to pursue discrimination claims alleging that she had been forced to retire as a result of her age and disability status—despite the fact that she had voluntarily agreed to retire as part of a union grievance settlement. This case, Melan v. Belle Vernon Area School District, serves as a warning to employers settling grievances under a collective bargaining agreement that implicate employees’ federally protected rights.