Category: Labor & Employment

Department of State Releases May 2014 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

 

Bulletin shows minor forward movement in the EB-2 China category and the EB-3 India category, with no movement in the EB-2 India category or the EB-3 China category.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its May 2014 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the May 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

The May Visa Bulletin indicates minor forward movement of the cutoff date in the EB-2 China category and no movement in the EB-3 China category. The May Visa Bulletin also indicates minor forward movement of the cutoff date in the EB-3 India category and no movement in the EB-2 India category.

A cutoff date of April 15, 2012 will remain in effect for individuals in the F2A category chargeable to Mexico, while a cutoff date of September 8, 2013 will remain in effect for individuals in the F2A category chargeable to all other countries.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date of November 15, 2004 for individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will remain unchanged from the April Visa Bulletin. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance by 38 days to April 15, 2009. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will advance by 16 days to October 1, 2013. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will remain unchanged at October 1, 2012. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines will advance by 139 days to November 1, 2007. The cutoff date for individuals chargeable to Mexico and the Rest of the World will remain unchanged at October 1, 2012. We note that the EB-3 China category remains ahead of the EB-2 China category.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: October 1, 2012 (no movement)
India: October 1, 2003 (forward movement of 16 days)
Mexico: October 1, 2012 (no movement)
Philippines: November 1, 2007 (forward movement of 139 days)
Rest of the World: October 1, 2012 (no movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The May Visa Bulletin indicates no change to these categories. This means that individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through May 2014.

China

The April Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 8, 2009 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 15, 2009, reflecting forward movement of 38 days. This means that individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to April 15, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014.

India

In December 2013, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India retrogressed by 3.5 years to November 15, 2004 due to unprecedented demand for EB-2 visa numbers from applicants in this category. This cutoff date has since remained constant, and the May Visa Bulletin again indicates no change. This means that only individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to November 15, 2004 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

From September through December 2013, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China advanced by 2.75 years, and, from January through April, this cutoff date advanced by an additional 366 days. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of October 1, 2012, reflecting no change to the cutoff date from April. This means that individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to October 1, 2012 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014.

India

In March, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India advanced by 14 days to September 15, 2003. There was no change to this cutoff date in April. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of October 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 16 days. This means that only EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to October 1, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014.

Rest of the World

From September through December 2013, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World advanced by 2.75 years, and, from January through April, this cutoff date advanced by an additional 366 days. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of October 1, 2012, reflecting no movement of this cutoff date. This means that individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to October 1, 2012 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

Beginning in October 2013, a cutoff date of September 1, 2013 was imposed for F2A spouses and children of permanent residents from Mexico, and a cutoff date of September 8, 2013 was imposed for F2A spouses and children of permanent residents from all other countries. In March, as a result of heavy demand in the F2A Mexico category, the cutoff date for F2A applicants born in Mexico retrogressed by 504 days to April 15, 2012; the cutoff date for F2A applicants from all other countries remained unchanged. There was no change to these cutoff dates in April, and the May Visa Bulletin again indicates no change to these cutoff dates. This means that those applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to April 15, 2012 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in May 2014, and those applicants from the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to September 8, 2013 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through May 2014.

The May Visa Bulletin indicates that demand in the F2A category continues to increase dramatically and that the cutoff date for individuals from Mexico and all other countries is therefore likely to retrogress in the coming months.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the May 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

IRS Clarifies How Plan Sponsors Should Handle Same-Sex Spouses in Qualified Retirement Plans

Michael Best Logo

On April 4, 2014, the IRS issued Notice 2014-19, requiring that qualified retirement plans apply “spouse” and “marriage” to same-sex spouses just as the plan would to opposite-sex spouses and establishing criteria for what plan amendments are needed and the timing for doing so.

Background

In September of 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that same-sex marriages would not be recognized under federal law. On June 26, 2013, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Windsor case that DOMA’s treatment of such marriages was unconstitutional. Following Windsor, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 on August 29, 2013 (effective September 16, 2013), requiring same-sex marriages legally performed under state law to be recognized for federal tax purposes in any state regardless of whether the state recognizes the validity of same-sex marriages. This Revenue Ruling further provided that individuals who entered into registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar relationships under state law did not qualify as “spouses” and that these relationships did not qualify as “marriages” for federal tax purposes.

The newly issued April 4 Notice gives further guidance respecting qualified retirement plans on a wide range of subjects including qualified joint and survivor annuity rules, the Retirement Equity Act’s spousal beneficiary safeguards, required minimum distribution calculations and timing, control group determinations, ESOP rules, and the QDRO exceptions to the Code’s anti-alienation rules.

Notice 2014-19

The new IRS Notice describes when qualified retirement plans must be in administrative and documentary compliance with Windsor and the August 2013 Revenue Ruling. Plan sponsors and recordkeepers must have been administering their retirement plans consistent with Windsor as of June 26, 2013, even if these plans did not contemplate valid same-sex marriages. The corollary to this is that failing to recognize same-sex marriages before June 26, 2013, will not disqualify a plan. Furthermore, because last summer’s Revenue Ruling was not effective until September 16, 2013, there will be no risk of disqualification during the gap period between the effective date of Windsor and September 16 for plans that recognized same-sex marriages only if a participant was domiciled in a state that recognized same-sex marriages. The IRS further clarified that plan sponsors could operate their plans prior to June 26, 2013 to reflect Windsor on some or all qualification requirements without risk of disqualification so long as the basic qualification rules were satisfied, i.e., plan sponsors could be more generous than the Code required if it was feasible administratively.

From a documentation standpoint, all qualified retirement plans must be consistent with Windsor and both the IRS Revenue Ruling and the new Notice. Depending on how a plan uses or defines the terms “spouse” and “marriage,” plan amendments may or may not be needed. If a plan uses or defines these terms in a neutral manner without reference to “opposite-sex” or DOMA and they can be reasonably construed in harmony withWindsor and the IRS guidance, then no plan amendment is likely needed. However, if a plan couches the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in accordance with DOMA or inconsistently with Windsor, then the plan will need to be amended retroactively to June 26, 2013 to maintain its qualified status.

The deadline for adopting any needed amendments is generally going to be December 31, 2014, although for some plan sponsors, the amendment deadline could be later depending on their unique circumstances.

Next Steps

In response to Notice 2014-19, plan sponsors will need to review the terms of their retirement plans to ensure each plan contains a proper definition of “spouse” and “marriage” and to timely amend their plans, as necessary. Additionally, plan sponsors should confirm the administrative aspects of their plans with their recordkeepers. Based on all of this, Notice 2014-19 is welcome news as it provides certainty: individuals can better plan their benefits and retirements, recordkeepers can confidently begin any needed programming and website changes, and plan sponsors can undertake any needed revisions to their plan documents, summary plan descriptions and other communications.

Article By:

Jorge M. Leon
Kirk A. Pelikan
Charles P. Stevens
Of:
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Revitalized National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Takes on Vigorous Agenda Including Reissued Quickie Union Election Rules And Greater Employee Handbook Scrutiny

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) has been notably active in the first quarter of 2014.

As addressed in our March 2013 Alert, the Board faced uncertainty regarding its power to act following the January 23, 2013 decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Noel Canning held that President Obama’s three recess appointments to the Board, made on January 4, 2012, were unconstitutional. Then, in August 2013, the NLRB received a full complement of five Senate-confirmed members.

While it has taken a few months for the Board to ramp up after the new members were sworn in, the newly invigorated NLRB is quickly making up for that time. For instance, the Board issued 19 decisions in January 2014 alone.

Below are summaries of certain significant NLRB developments from the first quarter of 2014:

NLRB Proposes Quickie Election Rules Again – Will Help Unions to Organize On February 5, 2014, the Board reissued proposed amendments to its existing rules governing union election procedures, new rules which it first proposed in2011. These rules will make union organizing easier by dramatically expediting the Union election process. In May 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had blocked the prior rules, holding that the NLRB lacked a quorum when it adopted those rules.

The new proposed rules, which the Board issued with a full quorum, would make several significant changes that would greatly benefit unions. The proposed rules would:

  • speed up union elections by ending the current practice of scheduling pre-election hearings within fourteen days from the petition filing and instead requiring hearings to be held within seven days of the filing;
  • substantially reduce an employer’s right to litigate whether employees are eligible to vote prior to an election, by automatically deferring such issues until after the election; and
  • require employers to provide union organizers with the names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of employees once a petition has been filed.
  • The NLRB is accepting public comments on the proposal until April 7, 2014. In addition, the Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules during the week of April 7, 2014.

NLRB Employee Handbook Scrutiny The Board has been more closely examining provisions in companies’ employee handbooks. This increased scrutiny impacts employers in both union and non- union workplaces.

As noted in our April 2013 Alert, several of the Board’s prominent decisions over the past few years have addressed social media policies. Recently, the NLRB has expanded its focus to other aspects of employer handbook policies, such as those policies pertaining to confidentiality, dispute resolution, at-will employment statements, and non-union statements.

A recent example is a decision issued by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that partially invalidated an employer’s dress code. Boch Imports, Inc., NLRB, No. 1-CA-83551 (Jan. 13, 2014).

In Boch, the ALJ found that a dress code provision in a Honda dealer’s employee handbook that prohibited employees who have contact with the public from wearing pins, insignia, or other message clothing violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) (which prohibits employers from interfering with employees as they engage in protected concerted activity). Although the dress code rule applied to all pins, insignia, or other message clothing, the ALJ found that the rule violated an employee’s presumptive right to display a union insignia in the workplace.

Notice Posting Rule Abandoned – But New Emphasis on Digital Media to Publicize NLRA’s Protections in Union and Non-Union Workplaces The Board has decided not to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions which held that the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule was invalid. The Notice Posting Rule would have required private employers to post a notice in the workplace of employee rights under the Act.

The Board has issued an update on its website stating that the NLRB remains committed to making sure that “workers, businesses and labor organization are informed of their rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act.” According to that update, the workplace poster is available on the NLRB website and may be disseminated voluntarily. The Board has also established a free mobile app for iPhone and Android users, which provides information about the NLRA.

Although the NLRB chose to abandon its proposed Notice Posting Rule, the Board’s subsequent statements and its use of digital media to disseminate information about the Act demonstrate a commitment to remain relevant, modernize, and seek to influence employees in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces.

Employer Take Aways

  • Employees must prepare for the new quickie election rules. Management must promote positive employee relations before union organizing occurs. Employers will no longer have the time to campaign fully against unionization once a labor organization files a petition.
  • Employers must be very mindful of the Board’s increased focus on non-union workplaces, including its scrutiny of employee handbook and social media policies.

The NLRA applies to virtually all private sector employers, whether unionized or not unionized. If the NLRB finds that a policy violates the NLRA, the Board may order that the employer rescind that policy and may also require management to post a notice to employees stating that the employer will not violate the Act. The NLRB may also invalidate any discipline or termination that the employer based on that policy and can require the reinstatement, with back pay, of any discharged employee.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court is still considering the Board’s appeal of Noel Canning, which may require the Board to revisit certain prior rulings. In the meantime, the NLRB is moving forward with its vigorous agenda.
Article By:

David I. Rosen
Galit Kierkut
Charles S. Zucker
Grace A. Byrd
Of:
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Major League Baseball (MLB) All-Star Weekend Volunteers Not Employees Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Jackson Lewis Logo

Judge John G. Koeltl from the Southern District of New York has dismissed the minimum wage claims of an individual who served as a volunteer at last year’s Major League Baseball All Star Weekend FanFest, held at New York City’s Javits Center, based on the “amusement or recreational establishment” exemption.  Chen v. Major League Baseball, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42078 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2014).

Plaintiff worked three shifts as a volunteer at FanFest, stamping attendees’ wrists, handing out paraphernalia and directing attendees.  He argued that this work made him an “employee” of Major League Baseball.  Judge Koeltl declined to address whether Plaintiff’s volunteer services made him an “employee”, because even if the court made such a conclusion, Plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law as  Plaintiff was “employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment . . . [which did] not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year.”

While Chen is a victory for the employer community in light of the widespread series of actions brought by individuals classified as outside FLSA protection, principally asserted by interns,  many businesses are not seasonal in nature and thus cannot readily avail themselves of this exemption.  All potential exemptions and defenses to claims for minimum and overtime wages must be closely analyzed under the FLSA and, as applicable, state law.

Article By:

Noel P. Tripp
 
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

Retirement Plan Fee Litigation Finds Its Way to North Carolina

Poyner Spruill

Over the last few years, we have seen a significant increase in litigation involving the fees paid by retirement plans. However, until recently, no major litigation had occurred in North Carolina.  On March 12, 2014, one of these cases was filed against Winston-Salem-based Novant Health, a large hospital system in the southeast.  This case and other recent litigation should serve as a reminder to retirement plan fiduciaries of the need to monitor their plans’ service provider arrangements.

The complaint against Novant Health alleges that Novant’s retirement plan paid unreasonable fees to the plan’s recordkeeper and to an investment advisor.  The plaintiffs argue that the fees paid by the plan were unreasonable because, among other things, plan expenses increased more than 10-fold in one year without a corresponding increase in services.  The plaintiffs also claim that the fiduciaries breached their duties by failing to leverage the size of the plan to negotiate lower fees and by selecting retail mutual fund share classes when cheaper, “institutional” share classes were available.

While this case is still a long way from being decided, it should serve as a pointed reminder to plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries that they need to routinely monitor the reasonableness of plan fees and expenses.

If the plan document so provides, a plan can pay its own administrative expenses, but only if the appropriate fiduciary determines that those expenses are reasonable.  Before entering into a service provider relationship, the fiduciary must first make a determination that the services are necessary and the fees are reasonable.  The fiduciary then must monitor the arrangement over time to ensure that it remains reasonable.

The following fiduciary risk-management practices are worth considering for any plan committee or other fiduciary involved in the selection or monitoring of service providers:

  • Regularly identify all service providers that directly or indirectly receive fees from the plan.
  • Make sure each service provider has provided the plan fiduciaries with fee disclosures required by ERISA.
  • Regularly calculate the amounts that each service provider directly or indirectly receives from the plan.
  • Understand what services are provided to the plan for the fees paid.  If one vendor provides both services to the plan and non-plan services, make sure that the plan is not subsidizing any non-plan services.
  • Periodically confirm whether the service provider’s pricing is competitive.  This is particularly important as the size of the plan grows because the fiduciary will be expected to leverage the plan’s size to reduce fees.  Depending on the circumstances, it might be best to conduct a formal request for proposals from time to time.
  • If an advisor questions whether a fee arrangement is reasonable, take prompt action to investigate the issue and determine whether the arrangement is reasonable.
  • Make sure that participant communications accurately reflect how plan expenses are paid.
  • Document, document, document!  Document the decision-making process used to select a service provider, and document the fiduciary’s monitoring and review process.

These practices will assist the fiduciary in meeting its fiduciary duties and, perhaps more importantly, demonstrate fiduciary prudence to any inquiring party.

Article By:

Kelsey H. Mayo
David L. Woodard
 
Of:
Poyner Spruill LLP

Franchisors Beware: McDonald's Workers Sue for Alleged Wage and Hour Violations by Franchisees

VedderPriceLogo

Seven class action lawsuits were recently filed against McDonald’s Corp. and several McDonald’s franchisees in California, Michigan and New York. The lawsuits are a direct result of the coordinated effort by plaintiffs’ attorneys and the Service Employees International Union to pressure fast-food restaurants to pay their employees at least $15.00 per hour. The lawsuits are also part of a new strategy from the plaintiffs’ bar to sue fast-food and pizza franchisors (i.e., the “deep pocket”) for the conduct of independently owned franchisees.

The Michigan and New York class actions were filed in federal court and primarily allege that McDonald’s Corp. and the franchisees violated federal law by shaving hours from employees’ time cards, requiring employees to work off the clock and failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The California class actions were filed in state court and allege a variety of state labor law violations, including minimum wage and overtime violations and missed meal and rest breaks.

The lawsuits allege that McDonald’s Corp. is not only culpable for the suits relating to its corporate-owned stores, but also for its franchisees because of McDonald’s Corp.’s alleged heavy hand in monitoring and guiding the franchisees’ timekeeping, scheduling and other policies. In particular, the Michigan lawsuits allege that McDonald’s Corp. is a “joint employer” and thus also liable because it provides financial tracking computer software to franchisees, which allegedly guides when individual store managers may permit employees to be clocked in or on the clock. The software purportedly sends alerts to the manager when labor costs exceed a certain level of sales. As a result, the plaintiffs allege that managers prevented employees from clocking in (even though the employees were working) until the restaurant experienced a certain level of sales.

Generally, when determining whether a “joint employer” relationship exists, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, focusing on the economic realities of the particular relationship. A joint employment relationship may exist where two companies are deemed to share control of the employee, or one company is controlled by another company. Courts have considered a variety of factors when making this determination, including the ability to hire or fire the employees, supervision of the employees’ schedules and working conditions, determination of wages and the maintenance of employment records.

These McDonald’s lawsuits will need to overcome some very high hurdles before they may be certified as class actions due to the individualized nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and circumstances in the various stores. For example, certification may be inappropriate on a multi-store basis if McDonald’s can show that individual store managers implemented their own procedures and practices for scheduling and timekeeping. Nevertheless, these cases are a good reminder for franchisors to review the policies, training materials, software, etc., that they share with franchisees to ensure that the materials are lawful and will not inevitably lead to employees working off the clock. Lastly, franchisors should review their relationships and interactions with franchisees to ensure that they are not exercising control in a manner that could support a joint employer relationship.

Article By:

Joseph K. Mulherin
 
Of:
Vedder Price

Mind Regulations When It Is Time To Mine

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

The Department of Labor recently issued a reminder to employers involved in themining industry. As spring (slowly) approaches, surface mines will reopen. As miners head back to the job site and prepare equipment for the new season, potential for injury is high.

Of the 12,000 metal and nonmetal mines overseen by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), almost half are operated on a seasonal basis, closing for winter when conditions make operations too difficult. According to MSHA information, injuries at seasonal mines climb sharply in the spring. MSHA is vested with the power to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines.

Miner operators and managers should review safety information available at http://www.msha.gov and take the time to educate employees on the numerous hazards associated with the job. Always keep in mind that employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace; employee injuries are not only detrimental to operations, but can be costly – both financially and reputation-wise.

Article by:
Brandon K. Johnson
 
Of:
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies That Severance Pay is Taxable—in Most Cases

DrinkerBiddle

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, ruled that severance payments made to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).  Quality Stores, Inc., et al., 12-1408.  The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Quality Stores, which was seeking a $1 million tax refund based on its argument that severance payments were not covered by FICA and were excluded from taxation based on the Internal Revenue Code.  The Court’s ruling resolved a split between the Sixth Circuit and the Federal Circuit, and ended a legal battle with more than $1 billion at stake in potential tax refunds to employers involved in 11 separate cases with more than 2,400 refund claims.

Quality argued that its severance payments to terminated employees were actually supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (SUB), which are not considered “wages” under the Internal Revenue Code.  According to the company, “a SUB payment is a type of payment that—although made by an employer to [its] former employee—nonetheless does not meet the statutory definition of ‘wages’ because it is not remuneration for services.”  The Court noted that the severance payments were made only to employees and were based on employment-driven criteria including the position held, the employee’s length of service with the company and salary at the time of termination.  Relying on the “broad definition of wages under FICA,” the Court ruled that severance payments to employees who are terminated involuntarily are taxable under FICA.

However, in its decision the Court noted IRS revenue rulings that severance payments tied to the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits “are exempt not only from income tax withholding but also FICA taxation.”  Thus, employers appear to continue to be able to make severance payments not taxable through a carefully crafted structure linking the severance payments to the employee’s receipt of unemployment compensation benefits.

Article By:

Mark D. Nelson
Alejandra Lara
Of:
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Northwestern Scholarship Football Players Found to be Employees Eligible for Union Representation

Jackson Lewis Logo

Peter Sung Ohr, the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election pertaining to the effort of the Northwestern University football players to unionize. The Regional Director found that scholarship football players at Northwestern University are “employees” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and eligible for union representation. The Regional Director found appropriate a bargaining unit composed of “all football players receiving a grant-in-aid football scholarship and not having exhausted their playing eligibility.”

The Regional Director used the common law definition of employee in reaching his decision. Under the common law test, a person is an employee if he performs a service for another, under a contract of hire, for compensation, and is subject to the other’s right of control. He found the following:

  • The scholarship football players perform a service (playing football) for compensation (a scholarship)
  • The scholarship players’ commitments to play football in exchange for the scholarship constitutes a contract for hire
  • The scholarship players are under the control of the University for the entire year, including in-season and out-of-season workouts, restrictions on their entire personal life and detailed regulations players must follow at the risk of losing their scholarship

The Regional Director decided the NLRB’s 2004 Brown University decision, in which the NLRB found graduate assistants not to be employees of the university, to be inapplicable here because playing football is not part of the players’ academic degree program. However, he wrote that even if the Brown University test was applied, the scholarship football players would be found to be employees. He noted:

  • The scholarship players are not primarily students due to the 50-60 hours a week during the season that they devote to football
  • The scholarship players’ football “duties” do not constitute a part of their academic degree requirements
  • The academic faculty does not supervise the players’ football duties; rather, coaches who are not part of the faculty do so
  • The grant-in-aid football scholarship is not need-based like the financial aid other students receive but is given solely in exchange for playing football

The Regional Director rejected two additional arguments made by the University:

  • He decided the scholarship football players are not “temporary employees” (who are generally ineligible to participate in collective bargaining) because they work more than 40 hours a week during the season, work year round, expect to work for 4-5 years and play football as their prime consideration
  • He did not include the “walk-on” players in the bargaining unit. He found that they are not employees within the meaning of the NLRA because they do not receive a scholarship and are not subject to the conditions for its receipt

The University now has until April 9, 2014 to file a Request for Review to appeal the Regional Director’s ruling to the NLRB in Washington, D.C.

Article By:

Gregg E. Clifton
Paul V. Kelly
Of: 
Jackson Lewis P.C.

What To Look For Down The Road: France

Sheppard Mullin 2012

There is some legislation being debated in the French Parliament.  One piece of legislation would encourage fathers to take leave to care for their children.  The goal would be to curb the systemic disadvantages that women experience in their careers due to motherhood.

Another bill has been introduced with the goal of reforming the system of continuing vocational training, which could have major financial implications.  The bill provides for the creation of a so-called “individual learning account” in which rights to training hours earned each year would accumulate, within a total limit of 150 hours.  The account would not be related to the company: it would be personal and “follow” the employee throughout his/her entire working life.

 Article by:

Terese M. Connolly

Of:

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP