Labor

Subscribe to Labor via RSS

The National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) recently announced that it will seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s Noel Canning decision, which invalidated President Obama’s purported recess appointments of three of the Board’s five members.  As we previously discussed here, the D.C. Circuit held that because the Board members were not properly appointed, the Board lacked the quorum it needed to act.

As discussed in the January 29, 2013 post below, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the Noel Canning decision that President Obama’s purported recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were constitutionally invalid.  That decision has thrown into question each of the Board’s decisions since those appointments were made in January 2012, and employers, employees, and unions alike are anxious to have the matter resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our firm’s latest “Advisory” just went out this afternoon explaining the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals‘ ruling from last Friday that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, and therefore the Board was without the required quorum to act in a case from last year in which it found a soda-bottling company had committed an unfair labor practice.

This case involves a fascinating legal issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches (at least for those who find such things fascinating).  This decision is also good news for a particular soda-bottling company that challenged the NLRB’s decision.

When you are conducting a workplace investigation, do you instruct employees interviewed not to discuss the investigation with other employees?  You probably do.  It protects the fairness, integrity and truth-gathering function of the investigation.  It allows you to do the best possible investigation.

Did you know, however, that giving that instruction to employees — to not discuss the investigation with co-workers — may be illegal?  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently said it is.  Read on for their explanation and what you can do about it.

We are thrilled that you read our blog and hope that you are finding it informative, entertaining and beneficial to you and your work.  If you have comments, suggestions or ideas, please let us know.  We love feedback and we want to be sure the blog is what you, our readers, find most useful.

Of course, there are plenty of newsworthy stories on human resources and labor and employment law issues that we are not able to get to in our blog posts.  Here are some links to recent stories and articles that we have found interesting, and thought you might enjoy as well:

  • The National Labor Relations Board finds that Costco’s social media policy is overbroad, affirming guidance released by the Board’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon.  Inside Counsel

The National Labor Relations Board is taking an increasingly hard look at the language in employer handbooks, as shown by two recent cases from the NLRB’s Arizona Region.  Recently, Hyatt Hotels Corporation agreed to settle an unfair labor practice charge that claimed a provision in the company’s employee handbook acknowledgment form was too broad.  The provision stated that Hyatt’s at-will employment policy could not be changed except by a written agreement signed by the employee and particular executives.  Similarly, earlier this year an administrative law judge decided that a disclaimer in the handbook of an American Red Cross unit stating that the at-will employment relationship “cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way,” could be interpreted to interfere with employees’ rights to engage in group activity to try to change the policy.

So, why the sudden attention by the NLRB to employee handbook policies on employment “at-will”? 

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board  (“NLRB”) issued its latest guidance on employer social media policies.  Over the past few years, the NLRB has taken the position that “overbroad” social media policies unreasonably and unlawfully prohibit employees from engaging in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act  (“NLRA”).  Importantly, Section 7 applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces.  So, if you are a non-unionized employer, read on — this applies to you, too!

Our Troutman Sanders LLP Labor & Employment Group just sent out an Advisory on the NLRB’s Union Rights Poster Rule.  In a nutshell, the Rule — which requires employers to put up posters informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act — was supposed to go into effect on April 30, 2012.  However, a federal district court last week found the rule to be invalid.

With baseball season underway, minds have turned to “America’s Pastime.”  Major League Baseball, like every employer should, has issued a social media policy.  A quick review raises questions about whether portions of the policy will “strike out” if reviewed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has been very active in reviewing employer policies and actions relating to social media use by employees. The NLRB is concerned by social media policies it views as unfairly restricting employees — including those not even working in a unionized workplace — from engaging in “protected concerted activity” as defined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Simply put, restricting employees from freely discussing their “conditions of work” is considered a violation of Section 7.

So, will Major League Baseball’s social media policy be “safe” at home?  Let’s play umpire…