Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Tuesday night's vote in the United States Senate in regard to rescinding a law that allowed consumers to participate in class actions and avoid mandatory arbitration (in claims made against financial institutions), was particularly eye catching.  There is a case with similar issues currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.  While the Senate's Tuesday night vote will likely have little to no effect on the Supreme Court case, there were enough similarities between the two matters that lead me to wonder if Congress might take similar action (in the realm of employment contracts).  Time will tell.

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


The Save Local Business Act Picks Up Seven New Sponsors

Earlier this month, I noted that the Save Local Business Act was gaining momentum as it was starting to work its way through Congress.  (For those unfamiliar with this proposed bill, it would reverse the National Labor Relations Board's much maligned decision, Browning-Ferris, and narrow the circumstances under which a business can be found to be jointly liable for labor law violations committed by its contractors and franchisees.)  Well lo and behold, this week, seven new sponsors came out in support of the bill:  Representatives Tom Cole, Marsha Blackburn, Michael Burgess, Bob Gibbs, Randy Hultgren, Robert Pittenger, and Pat Tiberi.  (All of these Representatives are Republicans...although some Democrats have previously announced their support for the bill).


Could Class Action Waivers and Mandatory Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contracts Be On the Horizon For Congress?

Earlier this month, I pointed readers to a case pending before the United States Supreme Court, NLRB v. Murphy Oil.  That case centers on whether an employment contract can lawfully require employees to forfeit their right to join a class action and instead be forced to resolve their disputes by way of binding arbitration (rather than in court).  As Jim Puzzanghera at The Los Angeles Times writes, the Republican controlled United States Senate earlier this week voted to kill a new law that allowed consumers to participate in class actions against financial institutions (and avoid mandatory arbitration).  Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie vote after the Senate deadlocked at 50 - 50 after two Republican Senators voted against repealing the law.  While this vote does not necessarily have an impact on NLRB v. Murphy Oil, it could provide some guidance on how Congress could act should a bill be introduced in regard to class action waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions in employment contracts (and Republicans still have a majority control.)


UAW Files Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Tesla

Yesterday, the United Auto Workers ("UAW") announced it had filed unfair labor practice charges against Tesla on the grounds that the company illegally fired pro-union employees.  This comes on the heals of Tesla firing hundreds of workers after it completed its recent performance reviews (after the company was ramping up production.)   In short, the UAW alleged that Tesla intimidated and harassed employees, terminated a group of employees to discourage protected concerted activity, disciplined employees for wearing items with union logos, and terminated/disciplined employees in retaliation for participating in protected concerted activity.  At this point, these are simply charges.  It will be interesting to see how Tesla responds and how things play out.

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. ...