Tag: NLRB

The NLRB Curtails the Scope of Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued McLaren Macomb, a decision that curtails the permissible scope of confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements. See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). Analyzing the broad provisions in the agreements at issue in this case, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) was unlawful. The Board held:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial.

The Board’s decision is part of a broader trend by courts and administrative agencies applying heightened scrutiny to contractual provisions that limit employees’ rights. The decision also provides a crucial reminder to union and nonunion workers alike of the relevance of federal labor law in providing legal protections for most private-sector workers.

Case Background

The case arose when Michigan hospital operator McLaren Macomb permanently furloughed eleven employees, all bargaining unit members of Local 40 RN Staff Council, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO, because it had terminated outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. After McLaren Macomb furloughed these employees, it presented them with a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered severance amounts to the employees if they signed the agreement. All eleven employees signed.

The agreements provided broad language regarding confidentiality and nondisparagement. The confidentiality provision stated, “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.” (emphasis added). The non-disclosure provision provided, in relevant part, “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer…” The employees faced substantial financial penalties if they violated the provisions. The Employer conditioned the payment of severance on Employees’ entering into this agreement.

The NLRB’s Decision

In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that contain these broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions violates the NLRA.

The NLRA provides broad protections of employees’ rights to engage in collective action. Section 7 of the NLRA vests employees with a number of rights, including the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” As the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the NLRB have repeatedly held and reaffirmed, Section 7 provides broad rights for employees and former employees—union and nonunion alike—to engage in collective action, including discussing terms and conditions of employment and workplace issues with coworkers, a union, and the Board. As the Supreme Court has stated in elaborating on the broad construction of Section 7, “labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978).

Applying these foundational principles to the severance agreements at hand, the Board reversed Trump-era NLRB precedent and concluded that the employer’s proffer of these broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions contravened the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights, which is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Notably, the Board held that an employer’s merely offering such broad provisions violates the Act—it does not matter whether the employee signs the agreement or not.

The Board determined that the nondisparagement provision substantially interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights on its face. That provision prohibits the furloughed employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer.” Analyzing this language, the Board reasoned that the provision would encompass employee conduct or critiques of the employer regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment. Accordingly, this proscription sweeps far too broadly—it prohibits employees from exercising their right to publicize labor disputes, a right which is protected by the Act. Moreover, the nondisparagement provision chills employees from exercising Section 7 rights, including efforts to assist fellow employees, cooperate with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices, and raise or assist in making workplace complaints to coworkers, their union, the Board, the media, or “almost anyone else.” As the Board underscored, “Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.”

The Board then concluded that the confidentiality provision also interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in at least two ways. First, the Board explained that because the confidentiality provision prohibits the employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person,” the agreement would reasonably tend to coerce the employee not to file a ULP charge with the Board or assist in a Board investigation. (emphasis added). Second, the same language would also prohibit the furloughed employee from discussing the terms of the agreement with former coworkers in similar situations, which would frustrate the mutual support between employees at the heart of the Act. As the Board summarized, “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Takeaways for Employment Lawyers and Plaintiffs

First, while one might assume that labor law is exclusively the province of unions, their members, and their lawyers, McLaren Macomb demonstrates the relevance of the NLRA for employees regardless of union status. Although the workers in this case were unionized, the Section 7 rights at the heart of the NLRA apply to most private-sector employees, including nonunion employees. Indeed, because nonunion workers often have fewer workplace protections than their unionized counterparts, Section 7’s protections are critically important for nonunion employees. Employees who are asked to sign confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions and their attorneys should be aware that broad restrictions on employees’ concerted activity may be illegal.

Second, this decision is part of a broader effort to protect workers from being muzzled by their employers. For instance, the recent federal Speak Out Act establishes that predispute nondisclosure clauses and nondisparagement clauses—often included in employment contracts—are unenforceable in disputes involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. These recent developments in the law should be on the radar of workers and their attorneys who are navigating employer’s contracts, policies, handbooks, and proposed severance agreements.

Article By Kyle Bigley of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

Beltway Buzz, January 20, 2023

Union Membership Decreases. The percentage of workers who are union members dropped to 10.1 percent in 2022 from 10.3 percent in 2021, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In the private sector, the unionization rate fell to 6 percent last year from 6.1 percent in 2021. According to BLS:

The 2022 unionization rate (10.1 percent) is the lowest on record. In 1983, the first year where comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

Thus, despite some splashy headlines and a few high-profile examples, the great majority of employees continue to reject unionization. Expect labor unions and their allies in Washington, D.C., to spin these numbers as a reason to double down on efforts to tilt the labor policy field in favor of labor unions.

D.C. Circuit Issues Ruling on NLRB 2019 Election Regs. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision relating to five specific provisions of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2019 changes to its regulations governing union elections. In a May 2020 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in an opinion by then-judge Ketanji Brown Jackson) invalidated the five provisions as contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act because the NLRB did not seek public comment on the changes. (The Board argued that the changes were procedural, not substantive, in nature and that public comment was not necessary.) In this week’s decision, the D.C. Circuit agreed that the district court was correct in invalidating three provisions: “the rules regarding the eligible employee-voters list, the timeline for certification of election results, and election-observer eligibility.” However, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the two remaining provisions—regarding pre-election litigation of voter eligibility and the timing of the date of an election—are “‘internal house-keeping’ rules” that are exempt from notice and comment requirements.

House Republicans Seek Information From Federal Agencies. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is wasting no time exercising her authority as chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Late last week, Foxx resent to federal labor agencies a series of previous information requests that were answered while Republicans were in the House minority in 2021 and 2022. The requests include the following:

  • Letters to Secretary of Labor Martin Walsh regarding, among other issues, his involvement in various high-profile labor disputes; documents and communications relating to the development and implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 2021 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard; and information surrounding the February 2022 report offered by the Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment, such as attendance lists, meeting minutes, rejected policy proposals, involvement of outside organizations.
  • A letter to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo regarding her April 2022 memorandum relating to employer speech. Specifically, the letter asks for information about the possible involvement of outside organizations, other agencies, and the White House, in the drafting of the memo.
  • A letter to NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran inquiring about potential conflicts of interest that Member Gwynne Wilcox and Member David Prouty may have regarding the Board’s joint employer policy.

The Buzz suspects that these letters are just the first examples of what will be at least two years of aggressive agency oversight by the committee.

DHS Announces Deferred Action for Workers Involved in Labor Investigations. Late last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a new streamlined and expedited process for undocumented workers seeking deferred action as a result of their cooperation in investigations into potential violations of labor laws. The new policy further implements provisions of DHS’s October 2021 memorandum, “Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, and the Dignity of the Individual.” According to the announcement, DHS will “provid[e] new guidance to labor agencies regarding processes to seek deferred action for certain workers” and will create a “single intake point for deferred action requests from noncitizen workers.” As such, “[t]he centralized intake process will allow DHS to efficiently review these time-sensitive requests, provide additional security to eligible workers on a case-by-case basis, and more robustly support the mission of labor agencies.”

OFCCP Proposes Changes to Complaint Intake Process. This week, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) proposed changes to its complaint intake process. OFCCP is proposing to add a preliminary step to evaluate the timeliness of allegations, whether it has jurisdiction over a matter, and how the matter should proceed. If OFCCP determines that an investigation is warranted, it will direct the complainant to fill out a more detailed form. According to the proposal, this two-step procedure “will improve the efficiency of [OFCCP’s] complaint intake process.” Comments are due by March 20, 2023.

Days of Hayes. President Rutherford Birchard Hayes passed away this week (January 17) in 1893. Hayes, the nineteenth president, was a former congressman and three-time governor of Ohio before he ran for president in 1876. His election against Democrat Samuel Tilden, the governor of New York, was mired in controversy and allegations of voter intimidation, resulting in disputed Electoral College votes. This led to the creation of an electoral commission, which eventually swung the Electoral College votes to Hayes by a margin of 185–184. The process earned Hayes the nickname “Rutherfraud” from Democrats. While Hayes hasn’t been the subject of popular movies or Broadway shows, he was a very interesting president:

  • Although twelve presidents who served before him were lawyers, Hayes was the first president to graduate from law school.
  • At almost forty years old, with no previous military experience, Hayes volunteered to fight for the Union during the Civil War. He was wounded several times, and served in the same infantry unit as fellow future president, William McKinley.
  • In 1879, Hayes signed the “Lockwood Bill,” which permitted women to practice law in federal court.
  • Hayes was the first president to make a trip to the West Coast and the first president to have both a telephone and a typewriter in the White House.

Hayes is responsible for the first Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, a tradition that will celebrate its 145th anniversary in just a few weeks.

Article By James J. Plunkett of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB”) issued a decision that that could have profound effect on employers in all industries, regardless if they have a union. In Thrryv, Inc., the NLRB ruled in a 3 to 2 decision that employers who have been found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) can be assessed “consequential damages.” in addition to the more traditional remedies of back pay and reinstatement.   If this case is upheld following a likely appeal, it will rock the employer community in the automotive industry and elsewhere.

The case arises from a unionized marketing company that decided to have a layoff. In the course of negotiating with the company over the layoff, the union representing the employees made various requests for information from the company. The company never provided the requested data. The NLRB determined the company violated the NLRA by refusing to respond to the union’s request for information. The NLRB further found the company violated the act by implementing the layoff without engaging in collective bargaining with the union.

Normally, the NLRB would remedy a violation of this nature by ordering the company to engage in “make whole relief” for the affected workers. Typically, that would involve reinstatement and back pay for the period of time they were wrongfully laid-off. However, in this case, the NLRB boldly went where it has never gone before and ordered the company to compensate the employees for “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the unfair labor practice.” The NLRB went on to say this would be the new normal to remedy employer violations of the NLRA. Determining the full extent of direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms will invariably require additional hearings in which the parties present evidence. Under this new standard, the type of damages potentially available to affected workers could include such things as out-of-pocket, medical expenses, credit card debt, and any other cause the light off employees incurred while trying to make ends meet.

The two Republican members of the NLRB, Marvin Kaplan, and John Ring filed a dissenting opinion.  The dissent believes that the new remedy laid-out in the majority decision is too broad.  They contend this new standard could subject employers to almost limitless, speculative damages.  The dissenting opinion also notes that this new form of damages goes further than those available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They question how the NLRB could award such damages without specific statutory authority from Congress.

This case will almost certainly be appealed and it behooves all the employer community to closely follow its track and if the NLRB uses other cases to continue to try to implement these new form of damages.

Article By Mark J. Neuberger of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Following the Recent Regulatory Trends, NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Limit Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

Under the General Counsel’s proposed framework, an employer can avoid a violation of the Act if it can demonstrate that its business needs require the electronic monitoring and management practices and the practices “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights.  Not only must the employer be able to make this showing, it must also demonstrate that it provided the employees advance notice of the technology used, the reason for its use, and how it uses the information obtained.  An employer is relieved of this obligation, according to the General Counsel, only if it can show “special circumstances” justifying “covert use” of the technology.

In GC 23-02, the General Counsel signaled to NLRB Regions that they should scrutinize a broad range of “automated management” and “algorithmic management” technologies, defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces, relying on data collection and surveillance of workers to enable automated or semi-automated decision-making.”  Technologies subject to this scrutiny include those used during working time, such as wearable devices, security cameras, and radio-frequency identification badges that record workers’ conversations and track the movements of employees, GPS tracking devices and cameras that keep track of the productivity and location of employees who are out on the road, and computer software that takes screenshots, webcam photos, or audio recordings.  Also subject to scrutiny are technologies employers may use to track employees while they are off duty, such as employer-issued phones and wearable devices, and applications installed on employees’ personal devices.  Finally, the General Counsel noted that an employer that uses such technologies to hire employees, such as online cognitive assessments and reviews of social media, “pry into job applicants’ private lives.”  Thus, these pre-hire practices may also violate of the Act.  Technologies such as resume readers and other automated selection tools used during hiring and promotion may also be subject to GC 23-02.

GC 23-02 follows the wave of recent federal guidance from the White House, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and local laws that attempt to define, regulate, and monitor the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making capacities.  Like these regulations and guidance, GC 23-02 raises more questions than it answers.  For example, GC 23-02 does not identify the standards for determining whether business needs “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights, or what constitutes “special circumstances” that an employer must show to avoid scrutiny under the Act.

While GC 23-02 sets forth the General Counsel’s proposal and thus is not legally binding, it does signal that there will likely be disputes in the future over artificial intelligence in the employment context.

Article By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Neresa A. De Biasi, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Set to Decide Whether NLRA Preempts State Law Claims for Property Damage Caused During Strikes

The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming term will include review of whether the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) preempts state court lawsuits for property damage caused during strikes, which could have significant implications for employers and unions.

Factual Background

The case – Glacier Northwest Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 – began over five years ago when the Union in Washington State representing the Employer’s truck drivers went on strike.  The Union timed their strike to coincide with the scheduled delivery of ready-mix concrete, and at least 16 drivers left trucks that were full of mixed concrete, forcing the Employer to rush to empty the trucks before it hardened and caused damage.  The Employer was able to do so, but incurred considerable additional expenses and, because it dumped the concrete in order to avoid truck damage, lost its product.

Employer Brings State Law Suit for Property Damage

After the incident, the Employer sued the Union under Washington State law for intentional destruction of property.  The Union argued that the suit was preempted by the Supreme Court’s decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (“Garmon”).  In Garmon, the Supreme Court held that, although the Act does not expressly preempt state law, it impliedly preempts claims based on conduct that is “arguably or actually protected by or prohibited by the Act.”  The Supreme Court held in Garmon that conduct is “arguably protected” when it is not “plainly contrary” to the Act or has not been rejected by the courts or the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”).

State Court Holdings

The Washington State trial court dismissed the Employer’s suit for property damage because strikes are protected by the Act.  The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that intentional destruction of property during a strike was not activity protected by the Act, and thus, not preempted under Garmon.

Finally, the Washington Supreme Court reversed again, holding that the Act impliedly preempts the state law tort claim because the intentional destruction of property that occurred incidental to a work stoppage was at least arguably protected, and the Board would be better-suited to make an ultimate determination on this legal issue.

Question Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will now determine whether the National Labor Relations Act bars state law tort claims against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property in the course of a labor dispute.

Under Garmon, the Act does not preempt suits regarding unlawful conduct that is plainly contrary to the NLRA, and the Employer argues that the strike at issue here was plainly unprotected because of the intentional destruction of property.  In other words, the conduct is not even arguably protected by the Act such that the Act would preempt – it was, rather, plainly unprotected conduct, and thus, the proper subject of a lawsuit.  The Employer also cited the “local feeling” exception to Garmon, which creates an exception to preemption where the States may have a greater interest in acting, such as in the case of property damage or violence.

The Union argued in opposition to the Employer’s certiorari petition that the Employer merely challenged the Washington Supreme Court’s conclusion that the conduct was arguably protected by the Act, and not its reasoning.  Moreover, whether or not the conduct was protected should be decided by the Board, which is better-suited to decide the matter.

Takeaway

Employers should gain much greater clarity into whether they can seek relief from such conduct via a damages lawsuit.  If the Court finds that such conduct is not preempted and may be litigated in state court, such a ruling could go far in protecting employers’ interests in contentious labor disputes and potentially shift the balance of power towards employers during these disputes.

Article By Michael J. Lebowich, Joshua S. Fox, and Thomas B. Fiascone of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

NLRB’s Proposed New Joint Employer Rule: What to Do Now to Manage the Risk

On September 7, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, if adopted, make it much easier for the NLRB to find a company to be a “joint employer” of persons directly employed by its contractors, vendors, suppliers and franchisees. The consequences of a joint employer finding are significant and can lead to: liability for unfair practices committed by the direct employer; a duty to bargain with a union representing the direct employer’s employees; exposure to liability for one’s own conduct that fails to take into account the indirect employer relationship and spread of a union from the direct employer’s employees to the indirect employer.

Joint-employer theory creates far more risk for employers than related doctrines such as single employer or alter ego because, unlike those theories, joint employer status does not require any common ownership or corporate control. Two companies operating entirely at arm’s length can be found joint employers.

The major proposed change relates to the degree of influence that an indirect employer must have to justify a finding of single employer status. Under the current NLRB standard, the indirect employer must actually exercise “immediate and direct” control over key terms of employment, normally limited to wages, benefits, hours and termination.

The proposed rule relaxes that standard in three key ways. First, it eliminates the actually exercise requirement and states that possession of even unused authority can be sufficient.

Second, it does away with the immediate and direct requirement so that influence exercised by the indirect employer through the direct employer can be used to support a finding.

Third, it expands, beyond the list enumerated in the current rule, the types of employment terms control of which will justify a finding of joint employer status. The Obama Board had adopted the currently proposed standard by an NLRB decision, Browning-Ferris Inds. 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). However, that decision was overturned by the Trump Board’s adoption of the current rule, 85 FR 11184, codified at 29 CFR 103.40, (Feb. 26, 2020). The proposed rule seeks to reinstate Browning-Ferrisas the governing law.

Because Browning-Ferrisand the NPRM endorse pre-1984 NLRB decisions regarding joint employer status, those decisions provide guidance for how the new rule may be enforced. The NLRB and courts frequently relied on what authority was given to the alleged indirect employer in its agreement with the contractor or vendor. Clauses that required or allowed the indirect employer to approve hirings, terminations or wage adjustments to contractor employees usually resulted in finding joint employer status. In addition, cost-plus arrangements, particularly those that were terminable on short notice were often found to support a joint employer finding. Finally, clauses allowing the indirect employer to set work schedules, production rates, or requiring contractor employees to abide by the indirect employer’s work rules and other policies governing conduct also were found supportive of joint employer status.

The proposed rule is still subject to comment and revision, but it is likely to be adopted without significant change. The comment and review period, which closes on November 21, 2022, provides a window in which savvy employers can assess the risks to their organization when the Rule goes into effect. A key step is to examine existing contractual relationships with vendors to identify and modify those terms that may potentially support joint employer status, or, if modification is untenable, to manage the risk through indemnity agreements with the vendor.

Article By Ahmad Chehab and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield
© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Could Leagues and Teams be Joint Employers Before the NLRB?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the standard for determining if two employers may be joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The proposed rule, expected to become effective sometime in 2023, could make it more likely that professional and collegiate leagues would be found to be joint employers of any unionized professional players or collegiate student-athletes who play for teams that are members of those leagues.

As a joint employer of unionized players of member teams, a league could be jointly responsible for unfair labor practices committed by the teams or the team’s supervisors or managers (i.e., coaches and administrators), be required to participate in collective bargaining negotiations with the teams concerning the wages and other terms and conditions of employment of the players, and picketing directed at the league would be considered primary and therefore permissible (rather than secondary and subject to injunction).

Currently, the NLRB will find two or more employers to be joint employers if there is evidence that one employer has actually exercised direct and regular control over essential employment terms of another employer’s employees. An employer that merely reserves the right to exercise control or that has exercised control only indirectly will not be found to be a joint employer. The NLRB has proposed that the Browning Ferris standard be restored. Under the proposed rule, two or more employers will be found to be joint employers if they “share or codetermine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.” Importantly – and the critical import of the proposed rule – the NLRB will consider both evidence that direct control has been exercised and that the right to control has been reserved (or exercised indirectly) over these essential terms and conditions of employment when reviewing two or more employers for status as joint employers.

Professional athletes are employees under Sec. 2(3) of the NLRA, of course. As for collegiate student-athletes, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum, GC 21-08, announcing the intention to consider scholarship athletes at private colleges and universities to be employees because, as she wrote, they “perform services for their colleges and the NCAA, in return for compensation, and subject to their control.” Stating in summation “that this memo will notify the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA, that [she] will be taking that legal position in future investigations and litigation” under the NLRA, Abruzzo signaled that conferences, leagues, and the NCAA will face joint-employer analysis in an appropriate case.

The “essential terms and conditions of employment” will translate to the sports workplace in the nature of game, practice and meeting times, travel and accommodation standards, equipment and safety standards, conduct rules and disciplinary proceedings, the length of a season, the number of games and playoff terms, and numerous other areas. Professional leagues may already coordinate with their member teams on a number of employment terms for players. For collegiate conferences and leagues, this may be new. Under the current standard, a league could better insulate itself from the decisions made by its members’ coaches and administrators by not exercising direct involvement in those matters. Under the proposed rule, a league or conference that merely has the power (even if reserved and unexercised) to make decisions affecting the “work” conditions for student-athletes could be jointly liable along with the institution for decisions made solely by the institution’s agents.

Consequently, conferences and leagues should consider training managers on their responsibility under the NLRA to private sector employees. They should also consider the role they want to play in collective bargaining should any of the student-athletes at their member institutions unionize.

Article By Patrick L. Egan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

NLRB To Begin Partnering With DOJ To Combat Collusion

The National Labor Relations Board and The Department of Justice joined forces to sign a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between the two entities. The MOU follows President Biden’s Executive Order in 2021 aimed at increasing competition in the economy. The NLRB and DOJ plan to coordinate in order to ensure workers are able to freely exercise their rights and to protect competitive labor markets.

According to the DOJ, this new partnership will allow the two agencies to “share information on potential violations of the antitrust and labor laws, collaborate on new policies and ensure that workers are protected from collusion and unlawful employer behavior.” The two agencies plan on greater coordination in information sharing, enforcement activity and training. Furthermore, the two agencies will now refer potential violations that they discover in their own investigations to each other.

For employers, this continues the trend of the federal government stepping up their investigatory and enforcement actions.

Article By Isaac T. Caverly of Polsinelli PC

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Crosshairs: Labor Board Targets Gig Economy, Noncompete Agreements, and More

Many employers in the “gig economy” – such as rideshare companies – rely heavily on independent contractors for various functions within their organizations. Because independent contractors are exempt from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which includes the right to form or join unions, this appears to have garnered the attention of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) top lawyer. And it appears the NLRB may be seeking to disrupt those companies’ current staffing models.

According to a recent press release from the agency:

“National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina M. Khan executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forming a partnership between the agencies that will promote fair competition and advance workers’ rights. The agreement enables the NLRB and FTC to closely collaborate by sharing information, conducting cross-training for staff at each agency, and partnering on investigative efforts within each agency’s authority.”

The statement then goes on to describe specifically how the agencies will be targeting the gig economy:

“The MOU identifies areas of mutual interest for the two agencies, including: labor market developments relating to the ‘gig economy’ such as misclassification of workers and algorithmic decision-making; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as noncompete and nondisclosure provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; and the ability of workers to act collectively.”

What does this mean for employers? For one thing, it reinforces that the NLRB is going to be taking a much closer look at workers classified as independent contractors – and likely finding independent contractor status more often. For another, it means the NLRB may soon be looking at noncompete agreements and similar restrictive covenants and finding the maintenance of overbroad terms to be violations of labor law. And while the memorandum calls out the gig economy, it is not limited solely to companies operating in that space.

Employers – in the gig economy and otherwise – should take note of these agencies’ moves and be aware that these issues are likely to receive much scrutiny in the coming months and years.

Article By David J. Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

The FTC Seemingly Thumbs Its Nose at the Supreme Court

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that regulatory agencies must have “clear congressional authorization” to make rules pertaining to “major questions” that are of “great political significance” and would affect “a significant portion of the American economy,” and the import of that ruling to the area of noncompete regulation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced yesterday that they are teaming up to address certain issues affecting the labor market, including the regulation of noncompetes.

In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issued on July 19, 2022, the FTC and NRLB shared their shared view that:

continued and enhanced coordination and cooperation concerning issues of common regulatory interest will help to protect workers against unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and unfair labor practices. Issues of common regulatory interest include labor market developments relating to the “gig economy” and other alternative work arrangements; claims and disclosures about earnings and costs associated with gig and other work; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as noncompete and nondisclosure provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; the impact of algorithmic decision making on workers; the ability of workers to act collectively; and the classification and treatment of workers. (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the purpose of the MOU is “to facilitate (a) information sharing and cross-agency consultations on an ad hoc basis for official law enforcement purposes, in a manner consistent with and permitted by the laws and regulations that govern the [FTC and NLRB], (b) cross-agency training to educate each [agency] about the laws and regulations enforced by the other [agency], and (c) coordinated outreach and education as appropriate.”

This follows the Biden Administration’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order in which it “encourage[d]” the FTC to “consider” exercising its statutory rulemaking authority under the FTC Act “to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” Nothing concrete has yet come of that Executive Order, although the MOU perhaps represents the next stage of the FTC’s “consider[ation]” of the issue. As we previously reported, FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan recently told the Wall Street Journal that regulating noncompetes “falls squarely in [the FTC’s] wheelhouse,” and she has never been shy about sharing her view that noncompetes should be banned nationwide and that the FTC has the authority to do so. This view does not appear to have changed despite the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA.

Only time will tell what, if any, action the FTC takes with respect to regulating noncompetes, but if it does take steps to ban or otherwise limit noncompetes nationwide under Section 5 of the FTC Act, there will no doubt be litigation challenging those regulations. And you can bet that the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA will be front and center in any such challenge. Indeed, according to Law360, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley said that the MOU shows Chairwoman Khan’s vision for the FTC “goes well beyond what is provided in law and what was envisioned by Congress.” Chairwoman Khan does not seem too perturbed by the prospect of challenges to the FTC’s authority in this regard, however, and seems intent on moving forward despite the Supreme Court’s admonition.

Article By Erik W. Weibust and Stuart M. Gerson of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.