Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


The past few weeks have been very busy for me wrapping things up in the office to close out the end of last month.  I did find some time to read a few different articles this week.  One of the more informative articles (both for those who practice labor law or just have a passing interest) concerns what employers can and cannot say during a union organization campaign. 

As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.


Employers: A Few Useful Tips on What to Say (& Not Say) During a Union Organization Campaign

Ryan Kunkel and Todd Hanchett have written a very good article with a few tips for employers that are dealing with a union organization campaign.  In particular, the article suggests things that employers can legally say and things the employer is prohibited from saying during this organization campaign.  While every situation is different and this article is not exhaustive, this is well worth a quick review for employers struggling to deal with a union organization campaign (and a tighter window because of the new "quickie" election rules that have gone into effect).


Minor Leaguers Get Conditional Class Certification

A few weeks ago, the judge in the minor leaguers' FLSA suit granted the plaintiffs conditional class certification.  For those who might not remember, early last year, several minor league players filed suit against Major League Baseball, Bud Selig (Commissioner at the time), and three MLB teams on the grounds that the minor leaguers were not paid minimum wage in violation of the FLSA.  (Minor Leaguers Bring FLSA Suit).  The Court's granting of conditional class certification means that the suit could include as a claimant all minor league baseball players who worked for the MLB or any MLB franchise since February 7, 2011 but had not spent any time in the major leagues.  Very interesting development.


Call Center FLSA Suit Proceeds

Doug Hass has an interesting note on an FLSA suit brought by employees that worked in a call center.  Apparently, the employer used a time keeping system that tracked an employee's log-in and log-out times as well as any "idle" time.  The employer allegedly deducted for this incremental time, although an employee could file a reimbursement claim with a manager (although these were apparently infrequently granted).  The district court in Minnesota where this case is pending recently allowed this claim to proceed forward.  Well worth keeping an eye on to see how this case progresses.


Some Need to Know Information About Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors

The Laconic Law Blog posted a well written article on what employers need to know about the Executive Order that President Obama signed which mandates paid sick leave for federal contractor and subcontractor personnel, set to take effect on January 1, 2017.  Granted, we still have over a year until this Executive Order takes effect...but employers would be smart to start reviewing things now to ensure they are in compliance.


Negative Job References...What is an Employer to Do?

Jon Hyman has a great note on what an employer is faced with when considering whether to give a negative job reference.  Readers should take note that Jon ties his analysis of the situation into current Ohio law.  While many readers are not from Ohio nor have Ohio laws apply to them, it is worth a read to get a feel for how different states and jurisdictions handle the issue.

Comments

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,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...