Skip to main content

NLRB: Employer Not Entitled to In Person, Rather Than Remote Hearing

 

William Beaumont Hospital - NLRB


Facts:  William Beaumont Hospital (“WB”) faced several allegations of committing unfair labor practices in relation to a union organizing campaign.  An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied WB’s request to hold an in person hearing on the grounds that the coronavirus pandemic constituted “compelling circumstances” to warrant the hearing be held remotely via video technology.  WB filed an instant request with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) asking for permission to appeal the ALJ’s ruling.

Analysis:  The NLRB noted that in a prior decision from earlier this year, Morrison Healthcare, it had found the coronavirus pandemic to constitute “compelling circumstances” to warrant a remote hearing in a representation case.  In reaching this conclusion, the NLRB based its ruling on Section 102.35(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.  (Section 102.35(c) allows a witness to appear and testify via video in an unfair labor practice case.)  In Morrison, the NLRB applied Section 102.35(c) to allow videoconference hearings “on a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances and under appropriate safeguards.

The NLRB recognized that while Section 102.38 provides that “[a]ny party has the right to appear at the hearing in person, by counsel, or by other representative...”, the right to appear in person is the right to appear at a hearing at all, not the right to be physically present in the hearing room.  Consequently, the NLRB found nothing in the Board’s Rules and Regulations or the National Labor Relations Act that would prevent the ALJ from allowing the unfair labor practice hearing to take place remotely via video technology rather than in person.

The Takeaway:  This decision is a good example of the phrase “it depends.”  For instance, had the ALJ allowed an in person hearing, I think the NLRB would have deferred to that ruling and allowed it to occur in person rather than remotely.  As well, had there been a larger number of cases where in person hearings had recently been held, I think WB could have argued there was a strong precedent to begin holding in person hearings again.  Not to mention, had the ALJ or NLRB held that the coronavirus pandemic had sufficiently subsided (enough to start widespread in person hearings that is), I think WB again would have come out on top.  Unfortunately, the cards were stacked against WB here, in so much that it could not establish “compelling circumstances” to persuade the NLRB to overturn the ALJ’s decision.

Date:  August 13, 2020

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45831e1bf0


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more