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, 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