Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


We have a little bit of everything this week, right?  For those interested in a jurisdictional argument, we have a USERRA case pending in the Texas Supreme Court.  For those looking for a labor law development, we have a recent ruling from an administrative law judge in regard to a tweet by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.  As well, there is something for readers interested in an HR related matters, specifically as it applies to bullying in the workplace.

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


Texas Supreme Court to Address Whether USERRA Claim Can Be Brought Against the State of Texas

Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court accepted a case, Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, and will consider whether a claimant can bring a USERRA claim against the State of Texas in state court (rather than federal court.)  (For those needing a refresher, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, or USERRA for short, prohibits adverse employment actions against employees based upon their military service.)  In this case, Le Roy Torres was part of the U.S. Army Reserves while employed as a State Trooper for the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS".)  After serving in Iraq and being honorably discharged after developing a breathing problem, he alleged DPS failed to accommodate his reemployment after he returned from Iraq.  While Section 4323(b)(2) of USERRA allows service members to sue states as employers in state courts, as a matter of first impression, a court of appeals in Texas held Section 4323(b)(2) unconstitutional and foreclosed allowing Texas service members to sue under USERRA if they worked for the State of Texas.  This will be an interesting case to see unfold, as this jurisdictional dispute plays out before the Supreme Court.


NLRB: Elon Musk's Tweet Violated Labor Law

At the end of September, an administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a ruling which found that Tesla CEO Elon Musk violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") when he sent a tweet suggesting that Tesla employees that voted to unionize would lose their company stock options.  The tweet read as follows:  "Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from union voting.  Could do so tmrw if they wanted.  But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing?  Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare."  (Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA prohibits employers from interfereing with, constraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the NLRA.  Threatening employees with a loss of benefits if they support a union, engage in union activity, or select a union to represent them, is prohibited.)  As the article from The National Law Review points out, the administrative law judge's ruling can be appealed to the full NLRB.  With a more employer friendly NLRB, perhaps the full NLRB could go the other way?  Time will tell.  Let us see if the administrative law judge's ruling is appealed though.


Curbing Bullying in the Workplace

HRDive wrote a recent article that touched on bullying in the workplace and a few things HR should keep in mind to help limit it.  I call attention to one particular part of the article which clarifies the differences between bullying and harassment:  bullying is problematic, but not against the law; harassment on the other hand is unlawful.  Using that as a springboard into ways that HR can work to curb bullying, I think this article has something for everyone.

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