Skip to main content

NLRB General Counsel Just Made It Easier For Nonmembers to Challenge Agency Fees


At the end of April, National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") General Counsel, Peter Robb, issued a memorandum in which he wrote that nonunion members that pay union dues will be able to more easily challenge the expenses required to be paid for the costs of collective bargaining and other nonpolitical activities.  (Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act allows employers and unions, in non right to work states, to enter into agreements that require union membership as a condition of employment.  These agreements allow unions to collect forced fees (a/k/a "agency fees") from all workers.  These agency fees are intended to prevent "free riders" from benefiting from the collective bargaining of the union without providing any financial support/compensation to the union itself.  However, certain union expenses have been found to not be chargeable to nonmembers, including the cost of lobbying, salaries, and benefits.)

The memorandum notes that going forward, workers that object to paying for particular union expenses do not have to explain why they should not have been charged nor require them to give the NLRB evidence or investigative leads to support their challenge; a change from prior NLRB General Counsels.  With prior NLRB General Counsels calling on workers to provide this information (as to their objection to particular union expenses), the burden was placed on workers to contest particular union expenses.  However, under this new guidance, the burden instead shifts to unions to provide evidence as to why a particular union expense charged to nonmembers is permitted by law.

This memorandum was predictably met with both applause and disdain.  Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, stated the burden shifting in regard to these union fees put the burden of proof back on the union officials "...where it belongs when it comes to justifying the amount of forced fees."  On the other side of the coin, the change in policy could lead to unions having to expend countless resources to rebut meritless challenges filed by nonmembers.  Regardless of where you stand on the matter, this is a favorable turn of events for those opposed to agency fees.


For a copy of General Counsel Robb's memorandum:  http://src.bna.com/HTW

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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. ...
1 comment
Read more