Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Labor Law Edition


There has been quite a bit of action on the labor law front over the past few weeks, with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") taking center stage with the issuance of several relevant decisions as well as Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar joining striking UAW workers on the picket line in Detroit yesterday.  Rather than writing a new update every day, I thought it was more prudent to put several of these key developments in a dedicated post.

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


NLRB Makes It Easier For Employers to Alter Labor Contracts Without Union Permission

Last Tuesday, the NLRB issued a decision in which it adopted the "contract coverage" standard for determining whether a unionized employer's unilateral change in a term or condition of employment violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  In its decision, the NLRB did away with the "clear and unmistakable waiver" standard, which notably had been rejected by several federal courts.  Under the new "contract coverage" standard, the plain language of the parties' collective bargaining agreement will be examined to determine whether the change made by the employer was within the compass or scope of contractual language granting the employer the right to act unilaterally.  If it was, the plain terms of the parties' agreement will be honored and the employer will not have violated the NLRA by making the change without bargaining.  If the agreement does not cover the employer's disputed action, the employer will have been found to have violated the NLRA unless it is shown that the union waived its right to bargain over the change or that it was privileged to act unilaterally for some other reason.  (The "clear and unmistakable waiver" standard held that an employer's unilateral change violated the NLRA unless a contractual provision unequivocally and specifically referred to the type of employer action at issue.)


Democrats Raise Conflict of Interest Charges With NLRB

Recently, Democratic Representatives Bobby Scott and Frederica Wilson have alleged the NLRB willfully ignored a conflict of interest when it hired a staffing company to provide temp workers to review public comments in regard to the NLRB's attempt to adopt a more employer friendly of the joint employer doctrine.  The Democrats argue that the staffing company that was hired to provide the temp workers to sort and review the public comments is actually in support of the NLRB's employer friendly version of the joint employer doctrine.  As a result, it is alleged that this staffing company has a stake in the outcome of any new joint employer rule issued by the NLRB...such that they could have improperly summarized and "fudged" the public comments the NLRB received to skew more in favor of the new proposed joint employer doctrine.



This past Monday, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union ("UFCW") announced it would host a forum this fall in Michigan and Iowa in which several 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates would have an opportunity to speak to UFCW members about the future of work, automation, and protecting "good" jobs.  For those wondering, the September 29th forum in Detroit and October 13th forum in Des Moines promise to feature "three or more presidential candidates who will answer questions from UFCW members in attendance and via video."  With the UFCW boasting its credentials as the country's largest private section union, I would expect this to be a major focal point for the Democratic candidates as they seek to garner the support of labor unions headed into next year's primary and caucus season.

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

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
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