Skip to main content

NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo to Urge Change to Standard When Evaluating Employer’s Involvement In Union Organization/Decertification

 

On September 4th, National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Peter Robb issued a guidance memo and urged the NLRB to create one standard when considering whether an employer’s assistance in union organizing violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

An employer violates Section 8(a) of the NLRA when it provides impermissible support to a union that is attempting to organize unrepresented employees.  Conversely, an employer violates Section 8(b) of the NLRA when it provides impermissible support to employees that are seeking to decertify or withdraw from a union.

NLRB precedent applies two different standards when considering what constitutes “impermissible support” under Section 8(a) and 8(b) of the NLRA.  When an employer is accused of impermissibly supporting a union’s organizing efforts, a “totality of the circumstances” standard is applied to consider if a violation of the NLRA occurred.  However, when an employer is accused of impermissibly supporting a decertification, a “more than ministerial aid” standard is applied to consider if a violation of the NLRA occurred.

It goes without saying that as currently applied, these two standards used to consider an employer’s behavior can yield inconsistent results for what constituted “impermissible support.”  The General Counsel’s memo has urged the NLRB to adopt the “more than ministerial aid” standard for both situations.

Whether the memo will spur change remains to be seen.  For the time being, however, the two different standards remain in place.


For a copy of the General Counsel’s Memo:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583220da3

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,...

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...

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...