Category: Labor & Employment

E-Verify: North Carolina and Federal Requirements

An article by Jennifer G. Parser of Poyner Spruill LLP regarding E-Verify appeared recently in The National Law Review:

North Carolina’s Rule

Last June, 2011, North Carolina joined the ranks of an increasing number of states requiring the use of E-Verify.  E-Verify is a free internet-based system that allows employers to determine employment authorization by checking an employee’s documentation against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases.  It applies to certain federal contractors, but also is being adopted by states, regardless of federal contracts being involved.

North Carolina counties, cities and public universities were required to register and participate in E-Verify by October 1, 2011. Private sector employers’ participation in E-Verify is phased in more slowly, according to the employer’s size:

  • Employers with 500 or more employees will be required to participate by October 1, 2012;
  • Employers with 100 or more employees will be required to participate by January 1, 2013; and
  • Employers with 25 or more employees will be required to participate by July 1, 2013.

Federal E-Verify Rule

Private businesses in North Carolina are required to verify the employment eligibility of current employees regardless of the above phased-in legislation if the employer has been awarded a federal contract on or after September 8, 2009 that contains the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause. Such federal contractors must enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date regardless of the business’ size. After enrollment, the federal contractor has 90 days to use E-Verify.  The federal contractor must then use E-Verify for new hires within 3 business days of the employee’s start date.

E-Verify must also used for existing employees assigned to work on the  federal contract within 90 days of the federal contract being awarded or within 30 days of the employee’s assignment to work on the federal contract, whichever is later. For existing employees to be required to be  run through E-Verify, the employee must perform substantial work under the federal contract which does not include administrative or clerical functions.  E-Verify does not apply to work that is performed outside the US, if the term of the federal contract lasts less 120 days, or if the federal contract pertains to commercially available off the shelf items.  A “commercially available off the shelf item”, known COTS, is something generally sold in substantial quantities in the open market.  A few examples are computer software, computer hardware and construction materials.  Also, industries that hire agricultural workers for 90 days or less in a 12 month period are exempt from enrolling in Federal E-Verify.

Unless the subcontractor is a supplier and not subject to the E-Verify federal contractor rule, a federal contractor must also ensure that its subcontractors enroll in and use E-Verify if:

  • The prime contract includes the Far E-Verify clause,
  • The subcontract is for commercial or noncommercial services or construction,
  • The subcontract has a value of more than $3,000, or
  • The subcontract includes work performed in the United States.

A Few Important Rules for Any Business Enrolled in E-Verify 

  • Post the notices that the business is now enrolled in E-Verify alongside antidiscrimination notices by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices
  • When completing the I-9 form, the employee’s choice of a List B document must contain a photograph in order to be run through E-Verify
  • Do not use E-Verify selectively
  • Do not use E-Verify to pre-screen job applicants; it is used post-hiring
  • Do not ask for additional documentation in the event of a “Tentative Nonconfirmation” by E-Verify: allow the employee time to correct any error by visiting the local SSA office
  • Do not terminate or take adverse action against an employee  who receives a tentative nonconfirmation: allow them time to correct the error

Penalties, Federal- and State-Imposed

There have been substantial fines levied for immigration-related offenses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) against employers enrolled in E-Verify, proving enrollment in E-Verify will not save an employer from potential violations.

Civil penalties for violations of  North Carolina’s E-Verify law are assessed by the NC Commissioner of Labor and range from $1,000 to $10,000.

E-Verify Link

Unless already enrolled in E-Verify as a federal contractor or subcontractor or having elected to do so on a voluntary basis, North Carolina employers with 25 or more employees would do well to visit the E-Verify website.  Click here.  At this point, there is time to become acquainted with E-Verify and its enrollment procedures before registration becomes mandatory.

© 2012 Poyner Spruill LLP

Riding the Escalator (Principle) Safely: Recent Appellate Court Decision Underscores Challenges Facing Employers Reinstating Returning Servicemembers

The National Law Review recently published an article by Aaron R. Gelb and Mark S. Goldstein of Vedder Price regarding Reinstating Servicemembers:

With large numbers of soldiers returning home and, presumably, to the jobs they held before being called to active duty, employers would do well to brush up on the re-employment obligations imposed by the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA). Not only must an employer reinstate a returning servicemember (assuming reinstatement was requested in a timely manner), but that employer must place the servicemember in a position equivalent to the position the employee would have held but for the fact of the employee’s military leave.

Complying with this obligation—which is commonly referred to as the Escalator Principle—can present some challenges for employers struggling to determine how far an employee would have advanced (up the escalator) in terms of position, pay and benefits, had the employee worked the entire period of time spent in the military. This analysis is even more difficult when the returning employee held a position that does not entail lockstep increases or seniority-based promotions or benefits.

In late 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vermont) issued an opinion in Serricchio v. Wachovia Securities LLC that underscores the sort of complex analysis in which employers must engage when reinstating employees and determining their post-service compensation rate.

Background of the Case

Michael Serricchio worked as a financial advisor for Prudential Securities (whose retail brokerage business was subsequently subsumed by Wachovia Securities) from late 2000 through September 2001, when he was called to active duty in the United States Air Force Reserve. Serricchio earned approximately $75,000 in commissions during his predeployment employment. While serving his country abroad, however, most of Serricchio’s accounts were reassigned and several were taken by the partner to his new firm.

When Serricchio returned from active duty in October 2003, he requested reinstatement, but had to wait five months before Wachovia re-employed him. When he was finally reinstated in late March 2004, Wachovia offered Serricchio an advisor position with his preservice commission rate. Serricchio, however, objected to this, citing the fact that the account list provided to him by Wachovia was not nearly as lucrative as the one he managed before deployment. Indeed, the court noted in its opinion that the book of business provided by Wachovia would “generate virtually no commissions.” Wachovia made matters worse, since it provided no assistance to Serricchio in re-establishing either his book of business or his higher, preservice commissions. Serricchio thus filed a lawsuit in US district court, accusing the company of violating USERRA by failing to re-employ him in a position that would provide him with the same earnings opportunities that he had prior to his deployment.

The Serricchio Decision

Following trial, a jury determined that Wachovia had not satisfied its obligation to provide Serricchio with the position that he would have held had his employment not been interrupted by military service or, in the alternative, to a position of “like seniority, state and pay” upon return from active duty. As such, the jury found that Wachovia had a) failed to offer Serricchio re-employment within two weeks of his request; b) failed to reinstate him to a position with pay comparable to his pre-service earnings; and c) constructively discharged him by failing to offer a suitable and appropriate position.

After a bench trial on the issue of damages, the district court awarded Serricchio $778,906 in back pay and liquidated damages, $830,107 in attorneys’ fees and costs, plus $36,567 in prejudgment interest, and reinstated him as a Wachovia financial advisor with a three-month fixed salary and a nine-month draw. Wachovia appealed both the jury’s decision and the district court’s apportionment of damages, arguing that it had complied with its USERRA obligations by offering Serricchio his preservice commission rate. The Second Circuit disagreed.

Noting that Serricchio presented a USERRA issue that was a matter of first impression, the Second Circuit held that Wachovia’s provision of a position with the “same preservice commission rate” did not comply with USERRA because it disregarded the “amount of actual commissions” that Serricchio had earned from his preservice book of business. The court held that offering a commission-based employee the same commission rate “without regard to volume or size of the accounts in the servicemember’s pre-activation book of business” does not satisfy USERRA. Where an employee has received commission-based pay, the appropriate USERRA analysis must therefore include the amount of prior earnings. Thus, Wachovia violated USERRA because the position that it offered to Serricchio upon his return from active duty would have resulted in much lower actual earnings—despite the same commission rate—and “did not provide the same opportunities for advancement, working conditions and responsibility that [Serricchio] would have had but for his period of military service.”

Lessons Learned

With thousands upon thousands of soldiers returning to the workforce, employers should ensure that the individuals responsible for making decisions relating to the employee’s position, pay and benefits understand what USERRA generally requires with respect to re-employment, how to properly apply the Escalator Principle and what the Serricchio decision means for employees who are compensated in ways other than straight salary. If at all possible, employers should provide USERRA training to these decision makers so that they understand the broad requirements of the law with respect to re-employment, as well as to other employment rights accorded to the men and women in our military. Finally, all re-employment-related decisions affecting a returning service- member should be reviewed by human resources, and employment counsel should be consulted if any questions arise.

© 2012 Vedder Price

“Brogrammers” Giving Silicon Valley a Bad Name?

An article by Emily Holbrook of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding “Brogrammers” recently appeared in The National Law Review:

According to a recent article, Silicon Valley tech firms are using marketing tactics geared more towards fraternity brothers than programming savants. The problem? Not only is it sexist at times, but it is alienating a large chunk of qualified tech professionals. Here are a few examples:

Of course, this is only a snipet of what’s going on as many of the antics are never publicized. Barbaic events like these may not only cost companies money (several businesses pulled their sponsorship from the Sqoot event), but it alienates those who may be talented programmers, but don’t adhere to the frat boy mentality.

There’s also an audience that feels left out of the joke. Women made up 21% of all programmers in 2010, down from 24% in 2000, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Anything that encourages the perception of tech as being male-dominated is likely to contribute to this decline, says Sara Chipps, founder of Girl Develop It, a series of software development workshops. “This brogramming thing would definitely turn off a lot of women from working” at startups, says Chipps.

But is this really a serious problem in Silicon Valley or just young men being young men? I’ve heard both sides of the argument. Some companies that have taken this seriously, such as Etsy, have decided to do something about it. The e-commerce website is donating $5,000 to at least 10 women in an attempt to lure female coders to New York’s Hacker School this summer.

Whether this is an epidemic that should cause concern or merely programmers acting their age, one thing is for sure — having a working envrionment void of diversity is aiken to siloed idea generation. Silicon Valley should know this.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor

Social Media for Employers: Recent Cases Before Courts, NLRB

The National Law Review recently published an article by John Patrick White, Jeffrey T. Gray, Jr. and Luis E. Avila of Varnum LLP regarding Social Media and Employers:

Varnum LLP

Social media continues to be in the news.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued an “updated” summary of social media cases earlier this year and social media continues to find its way into court decisions.

In 2011, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a summary of 14 social media cases handled by that office.  On January 24, 2012, the General Counsel issued an updated summary covering another 14 cases.  The General Counsel’s position in these cases is that social media policies (or any other policies) that may “reasonably chill” employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) are unlawful.  Here are the high points from the updated summary:

  • The General Counsel continues to find employer policies and work rules to be unlawfully broad when employees may reasonably view them as prohibiting conduct protected under the Act.  For example, work rules or policies prohibiting “insubordination or other disrespectful conduct” and “inappropriate conversation” were held to be unlawfully broad because employees might think that they cannot join together to complain about their terms and conditions of employment, which is protected activity under the Act.
  • Importantly, the General Counsel’s Office rejected a “savings clause” in a social media policy designed to prevent the policy from being overly broad.  The employer’s social media policy stated that “it would not be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with” employee rights under the Act.  The General Counsel found this language did not “save” the policy from being overbroad because an employee could not reasonably be expected to know that the clause would apply to discussions the employer deems inappropriate under the policy.  In light of the General Counsel’s approach, employers should narrowly tailor their social media policies rather than attempt to use “savings” language to fix overly broad policies.
  • On the other hand, the General Counsel found an employer’s “amended” social media policy to be lawful because it prohibited conduct that was “vulgar, obscene, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or a violation of the Employer’s workplace policies against discrimination, harassment, or hostility on account of age, race, religion, sex, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or other protected class, status, or characteristic.”  The General Counsel found the policy lawful because employees would not reasonably construe the policy’s language to prohibit conduct protected by the Act.
  • Individual gripes by employees are not protected activity.  Thus, the General Counsel found in several cases that employers did not violate the Act by discharging employees who complained about their employment on social media pages because they were acting solely on their own behalf rather than on behalf of themselves and other employees.
  • Employees can go overboard in their criticisms, however, and lose the protection of the Act.  Language that is “opprobrious,” or sufficiently “disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue” may remove the activity from protection, depending upon the circumstances.

In addition to the NLRB’s attention to employee activity, courts and arbitrators are increasingly addressing social media.  Here are just a few recent examples:

  • A federal district court in Illinois ruled that an employee, a marketing director for an interior design firm, could proceed with federal Stored Communications Act and Lanham Act claims against her employer based on her co-workers’ unauthorized use of her Facebook and Twitter accounts to promote the employer.  Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Grp., No. 10C 7811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2011).
  • A federal court in Washington ruled that a trial was necessary to determine whether an employee, who had been on leave for treatment of depression, was unlawfully discharged due to her suicidal comments made via social media.  Peer v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C11-0879-JCC (March 19, 2012).
  • An arbitrator denied a grievance challenging the discharge of a Head Start teacher who started a closed Facebook page to “gripe” about employees, parents, and students at the Head Start program.  Although the members of the invite-only group complained about work, they were also exceedingly profane, many of the posts were not connected to working conditions, and, most importantly, there was “nothing about the conversations that would lead to the conclusion that [the employees] were seeking to band together to take action to address their workplace concerns.”  Vista Neuvas Head Start, 129 LA 1519 (VanDagens, 2011).
  • A federal court in California held that a mobile news website company sufficiently stated claims for negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage by alleging that a former employee appropriated a company Twitter account that drove traffic to its website.  PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. C 11-03474 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012).
  • An NLRB administrative law judge recently ruled that a “Jimmy John’s” franchisee violated the Act when an assistant manager posted the telephone number of a known union supporter on an anti-union Facebook page and encouraged others to “text” him to let him know “how they feel.”  The ALJ believed this post amounted to an invitation for other anti-union co-workers to harass the employee in retaliation for this union activity.  Jimmy John’s, 18-CA-19707 (April 20, 2012).

Employers must act carefully when issuing disciplinary action in connection with social media activity.  Seeking legal advice is important because, as shown above, employee social media activity implicates numerous areas of employment law.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Attendance May be an Essential Function of the Job

This case tests the limits of an employer’s attendance policy. Just how essential is showing up for work on a predictable basis? In the case of a neo-natal intensive care nurse, we conclude that attendance really isessential.

So begins the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Medical Center.

The Samper plaintiff, a neonatal nurse in the defendant-hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), suffered from fibromyalgia which, she claimed, limited her sleep and caused her chronic pain.  The nurse asked the hospital to accommodate this disability by allowing her to miss work whenever she was having a “bad day.”  After years of unacceptable absenteeism what the Court described as the hospital’s “Herculean efforts” to accommodate the plaintiff, she was terminated.  She sued the hospital, claiming that it failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability.

The hospital did not dispute that the plaintiff was disabled, that she had the requisite technical skills for the job, or that she suffered an adverse employment action.  The hospital argued, however, that although the plaintiff possessed the technical qualifications of the job, she was unable to perform the essential function of showing up for work.

The burden was on the hospital to establish which functions were “essential” to the job.  Arguing that the hospital did not meet its burden to show that attendance was an essential function of the job, the plaintiff cited numerous cases for the proposition that regular attendance was not required.  For example, she cited to cases where “workers were basically fungible with one another, so that it did not matter who was doing the job on any particular day,” (dockworkers) as well as cases where the work could be performed remotely (medical transcriptionists).

The Court easily distinguished those cases, however, from cases like this one, where irregular attendance compromises essential functions.  Indeed, the Court stated:

To imagine a NICU facility, responsible for the emergency care of infants, operating effectively in such a manner, stretches the notion of accommodation beyond any reasonable limit. An accommodation that would allow [the plaintiff] to “simply . . . miss work whenever she felt she needed to and apparently for so long as she felt she needed to [a]s a matter of law . . . [is] not reasonable” on its face. Internal citations omitted.

Although the Court found in favor of the defendant-hospital, and held that regular attendance was an essential function of Ms. Samper’s job, it left open the possibility that regular attendance may not be an essential function for other jobs or jobs in other industries.  Nevertheless, the Court was crystal clear that an accommodation is not reasonable if it seeks an exemption from an essential function.

The case is noteworthy for several reasons.  First, while underscoring that the burden remains on the defendant to prove which functions of the job are “essential” functions, the case shows that in certain types of jobs an employer can make a compelling case that attendance is an essential function. Second, the case is a good illustration of how an employer’s initial efforts in “going the extra mile” to accommodate an employee’s disability can redound to the employer’s advantage when it ultimately decides that the disability can no longer be accommodated.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Turning the Unemployment Program into a Reemployment Program

Recently the U.S. Department of Labor had an article about the Unemployment Program published in The National Law Review:

Two months ago, the President signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.  That legislation extended the vital payroll tax cut and federal unemployment insurance programs that have been so crucial for American families and to the continued and sustained economic recovery.   But it also included several important reforms to the Unemployment Insurance system that didn’t grab the headlines the day it passed.

The Obama Administration is committed to finding new and innovative ways to turn the unemployment system into a reemployment system.  States, as laboratories of democracy, can play a crucial role in developing creative strategies that help us accomplish this goal in ways that may inform the policies of other states and the federal government in the future.

Today, I had the privilege to announce guidance to states interested in developing demonstration projects to help their unemployed obtain jobs faster and more efficiently.   These demonstrations are a key component in the first major overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance system in decades.

Through this initiative, 10 states will have the opportunity to develop new and creative ways to help recipients of UI funds get back to work faster.  These states will design programs that help the unemployed get back to work, while lowering costs and ensuring that all participants receive the same worker protections.  This will create a level playing field for employers who follow the rules and have their employees’ welfare in mind.

The Labor Department is preparing to announce more guidance in the coming months that further improve the functionality of the UI system.  These reforms will provide states with more flexibility to respond to changes in the economy, provide employers tools to avoid layoffs, help the unemployed get back into the workforce faster and even expand opportunities for the unemployed to start their own businesses.

Authored by Secretary Hilda Solis

© Copyright 2012 U.S. Department of Labor

Organized Labor’s Big Day: Are You Ready?

The National Law Review recently published an article by R. Scott Summers of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding Changes that Affect Private Sector Employers:

On April 30, 2012, just a few short weeks away, two critical changes that will affect just about every private sector employer are slated to go into effect. Whether your organization has a union, or is union-free, these changes could have important implications for your workplace policies and will affect the way you handle issues during union organizing campaigns.

As of April 30, 2012, most private sector employers1 – union and non-union – will be required to post a notice entitled “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).” The original effective date for posting this notice was January 31, 2012, but that date was pushed back until this spring. Among other things, the notice informs employees that they have the right to:

  • organize a union
  • discuss wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment with co-workers
  • strike and picket
  • choose not to participate in such activities.

The notice also lists examples of unlawful employer conduct and provides information about how to file unfair labor charges against an employer.

None of the various legal challenges to this controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) posting rule have yet been effective. Earlier this month a U.S. District Court Judge upheld the NLRB’s rule requiring the posting. The Judge noted among other things, that the employers had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the posting requirement were allowed to take effect. This was particularly the case, according to the judge, in light of her prior order invalidating the portion of the NLRB’s rule that made the mere failure to post the notice an unfair labor practice. The Judge also noted that the public interest also favored denying the employers’ requested injunction because the notice was intended to increase employees’ awareness of their rights, which the judge observed was “undoubtedly in the public interest.”There is another legal challenge to the posting rule pending in a federal District Court in South Carolina, but no decision has been issued in that case and there is no reason to expect one will be issued before April 30.

The poster is available on the NLRB’s web site at www.nlrb.gov. Also, various businesses which offer reproductions of government-required employment postings have already developed products that incorporate the new NLRB posting.

In addition to the requirement of posting a notice of employee rights under the NLRA, the NLRB has recently confirmed its plan to launch a website designed to inform nonunion employees of their rights under the NLRA. The NLRB’s focus in launching the website is to reach and educate nonunion employees about their right to engage in protected, concerted activity under the NLRA. As a supplement to the website, the NLRB plans to distribute educational brochures containing examples of issues that have arisen in past and current cases before the NLRB. The brochures, which will be offered in English and Spanish, will be distributed through advocacy groups and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor.

Obviously these two initiatives taken in tandem may serve to push non-union workforces to consider unionization. Additionally, the increased awareness of the right to bring a complaint against an employer regardless of one’s union membership will certainly result is an increase in the number of complaints filed with the NLRB.

The other big change, also taking effect on April 30, 2012, is a new rule that will revamp aspects of the union election process. What will this mean for your business?

  1. elections will proceed quicker than ever before
  2. you will have fewer opportunities to raise challenges throughout the election process

These rules illustrate the importance of engaging in union prevention efforts long before organizing begins.

The rule, popularly referred to as the “quickie elections” rule, will change the process for contesting union petitions and limit employers’ opportunities to challenge certain aspects of the election process before a union election. The NLRB’s goal is to speed up the election process by mandating that certain election issues be dealt with after the union election. (See our Jan. 4, 2012 insightNLRB’s New “Ambush Elections” Rule).

Eliminating pre-election appeals, limiting decisions on critical issues until after the election, and speeding up the election process, could substantially reduce the amount of time an employer has to communicate with its employees before an election. In fact, the election “campaign period” could be reduced to just a few weeks. Under the current rules, elections are usually scheduled at least a month after a union petition is filed.

A recent study conducted by the Heritage Group’s labor policy expert James Sherk estimated that the new election rules will dramatically increase the rate of unionization. Sherk cites a Bloomberg Government analysis to observe that a majority of workplace union elections are decided by five or fewer votes. What’s more, “cutting the time between a request for an election and the ballot increases the chances union supporters will prevail,” according to the study. Unions win 87 percent of elections held 11 to 15 days after a request, a rate that falls to 58 percent when the vote takes place after 36 to 40 days, according to the researchers.

The 11 to 15 day timeframe is very close to what the new NLRB rule is expected to achieve. The ambush election rule will trim the time between an election request and the election itself to 10 days or so, a significant drop from the current average of 31 days.

“If a broader set of elections were to occur more quickly,” wrote Bloomberg analysts Jason Arvelo and Ian Hathaway, “the likely outcome would be more organizing drives, a higher success rate for unions and ultimately more union membership.”

Practical Impact for Employers
In the meantime, what is the practical impact of these new rules on employers? To be sure, the new rules will result in employees being more aware of the NLRB and how to file unfair labor practice charges. They will also result in quicker elections in cases with contested unit and eligibility issues. Quicker elections certainly mean less time to communicate with employees during the election period.

Unions often plan organizing drives before they actually request a workplace election, while employers, who may not be aware of the effort, are forced to make their case only during the period between an election request and the actual election. Hence, shortening that period of time is more prohibitive to an employer’s ability to make the case against unionization than a union’s ability to lobby for it. Employees will hear the other side of the story only from management. Employers, not union organizers, will explain that unions often do not achieve their promised wage increases, but they always take up to 2 percent of workers’ wages in dues. Employers will also point out patterns of union corruption and clauses in union constitutions that levy stiff fines against workers who stray from union rules. Employers are free to tell workers what the union organizers do not.

Savvy employers should have strong employee relations policies and programs in place long before a petition. Such programs should establish open communication channels, provide for employee recognition, and implement competitive wages and benefits among other things. Implementing this type of program will not only help avoid a unionization drive in the first instance, but also will help build employee trust and establish efficient lines of communication that could be vital during a shortened pre-election period.

Employers should also consider training managers about permissible and prohibited conduct under the NLRA and conducting their own education programs, advising employees of their rights under the NLRA, and reminding employees of internal complaint procedures available to them.

Conclusion
2012 is already shaping up to be another eventful year at the NLRB. In coming insights we will further comment on the areas discussed here, as well as several other noteworthy trends. These include, among other things, the Board’s continual focus on social media cases and changes to their General Counsel’s willingness to defer to the grievance and arbitration process in some cases. Finally, Chairman Pearce’s stated desire for the Board to become known as “the resource for people with workplace concerns that may have nothing to do with union activities” promises a continuation of the Board’s focus on protected concerted activity cases in the non-union context. As always, we will continue to monitor and analyze these changes and their implications for employers.
_______________

(1) Excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act are public-sector employees, agricultural and domestic workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act, and supervisors.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

Employer Social Media Policies: Another One Bites the Dust

An article by Gerald F. Lutkus of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding Employer Social Media Policies was recently published in The National Law Review:

The NLRB has continued its assault on employer social media policies and a recent Administrative Law Judge ruling from the Board further complicates the issue. The Acting General Counsel, in his various reports on the Board’s social media cases, has made it clear that employers need to include disclaimers in their policies that nothing in the policy is meant to interfere with employee Section 7 rights. However, a San Francisco-based ALJ, in a lengthy opinion dealing with the social media policy of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., struck down that company’s social media policy even though it included such a disclaimer.

Specifically, the ALJ found that G4S’s policy was overbroad and would chill the exercise of Section 7 rights by employees of the company. G4S’s policy stated, “This policy will not be construed or applied in a way that interferes with employees’ rights under federal law.” The ALJ expressly determined that “it cannot be assumed that lay employees have the knowledge to discern what is federal law, and thus permitted under the disclaimer, as opposed to what is prohibited ‘legal matter’.” Though the ALJ did not go beyond that, the clear suggestion from the opinion is that a disclaimer of noninterference with Section 7 rights must be far more particular in explaining what types of rights are, in fact, protected under Section 7 and, thus, not prohibited under an employer’s social media policy. Of course, most employers are reluctant to spell out in detail in their own policy manuals exactly what types of activity employees may engage in as protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.

The judge’s ruling also struck down that portion of the company’s policy forbidding employees from commenting on work-related legal matters, but allowed a provision that prohibited the posting on social media sites of pictures of employees in their security uniforms.

A full text of the ALJ’s ruling in G4S Secure Solutions can be reviewed here.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Workplace Homicides on the Decline

An article by Jared Wade of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding Workplace Homicides recently appeared in The National Law Review:

The number of workplace homicides is less than half of what it was 20 years ago.

Omar Thornton was fired on August 3, 2010. He arrived for a 7 a.m disciplinary meeting at the Connecticut beer distributor where he worked, and after being shown a video his employer had recorded of him stealing a case of beer, was given an ultimatum: resign or be fired. Thornton signed a resignation agreement before reportedly excusing himself to get a drink of water. That was when the horror began.

Thornton used two Ruger pistols he had concealed in his lunchbox to kill nine coworkers during a 45-minute shooting rampage throughout the facility before taking his own life. It was the deadliest workplace shooting in Connecticut history.

Fortunately, tragedies like this are becoming less common. The likelihood of a workplace homicide is now half what it was in the mid-1990s, according to a recent report by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). This trend mirrors a declining national homicide rate, but workplace killings have fallen off even more rapidly. There were 950 in 1993 compared to just 462 in 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This represents a 59% drop-off in workplace homicides over 16 years compared to an overall U.S. homicide rate that fell 49%. The number of homicides has also fallen as a percentage of overall workplace deaths. In 1992, 17% were due to homicide compared to just 11% in 2009. (Auto accidents remain the top killer, holding steady at around 40% of all workplace deaths throughout at least the past two decades.)

The massacre in Connecticut was unusual in another way: the homicides were committed by a coworker. “Contrary to popular belief,” states the Spring 2000 issue of Compensation and Working Conditions, “the majority of [workplace homicides] are not crimes of passion committed by disgruntled coworkers and spouses, but rather result from robberies.”

In a disturbing trend, however, this is less the case today than it was a decade ago. Increasingly, coworkers are killing coworkers. “The highest share of workplace homicides is still due to the category of robbers and other perpetrators, but that share has fallen from 85% to 69% from 1997 to 2009,” states the NCCI report. “Over that same time period, the share due to work associates has grown from 9% to 21%.”

This represents a key area of concern for all companies. There is little a company can do about the national homicide rate. And while there is more it can do to protect itself from being targeted by thieves (adding surveillance, physical barriers or security guards, for example), robberies can still happen. There are, however, proven steps a company can take to reduce the likelihood of coworker-on-coworker violence.

Conducting better background screening during the hiring process is one. Other companies have found success by adopting zero-tolerance policies towards aggressive behavior of any kind in the workplace. That may be effective when combined with clear disciplinary actions for offenders. But the federal U.S. Office of Personnel Management recommends one method above all others: vigilance.

“No one can predict human behavior, and there is no specific profile of a potentially dangerous individual,” states the agency. But, it notes, there are clear indicators based on FBI research of increased risk of violent behavior.

Any direct threats of harm lead the list followed by intimidation, harassment, bullying or other aggressive behavior. Employees who have “numerous conflicts” with coworkers or display extreme changes in behavior also fit the profile of those more prone to commit violence. If any of these issues are observed by, or reported to, management, they should never be ignored.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc.

Slogans versus substance in the battle over ObamaCare's future: ANALYSIS

An article regarding ObamaCare written by Wendell Potter of the Center for Public Integrity recently appeared in The National Law Review:

Cries of ‘Hands off my health care’ mask the benefits of the Affordable Care Act

Hands off my health care!

Remember those words from the health care reform debate of two years ago? I’m confident we’ll be seeing them on protest signs in Washington again this week as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And we’ll see them again when the protest campaigns shift into high gear this summer.

One of the rules of effective communications is to keep it simple. In attacking something you don’t like, use as few words as possible, and make sure those words pack an emotional wallop. That’s why lies about “death panels” and a “government takeover” of health care have been so potent. Unfortunately for those advocating reform, it’s far more challenging to explain and defend a law as complicated as the Affordable Care Act.

Maybe, then, supporters of the law should co-opt the “hands off” slogan and make it their own. That would require adding just a few more words here and there to make clear what would be lost if the law is repealed, gutted or declared unconstitutional.

Here’s are some suggestions:

“Hands off my health care! Granny doesn’t need her meds all year anyway!”

The Affordable Care Act is closing the despised and even deadly “doughnut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program, which was designed in 2003 largely by lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies who were more interested in protecting their companies’ profits than helping seniors stay alive. The way the law was cobbled together, Medicare beneficiaries get prescription drug coverage only up to a certain amount. When they reach that limit, they fall into the “doughnut hole” and have to pay about $4,000 out of their own pockets for their prescriptions before coverage resumes. As a consequence, many people stop taking their medications because they don’t have the money to pay for them. And many of them die. The Affordable Care Act has already shrunk that gap and will close it completely in 2020.

“Hands off my health care! Who cares if insurers refuse to cover sick kids?”

Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies routinely refused to insure children who were born with disabilities or who developed life-threatening illnesses like diabetes or cancer. It was perfectly legal for them to refuse to sell coverage to anyone — even children— who had what insurers call a “pre-existing condition.” The reform law already requires insurers to cover all kids, regardless of health status. It will apply to the rest of us in 2014.

“Hands off my health care! My 24-year-old daughter can just stay uninsured!”

Insurers have long had a policy of kicking young adults off their parents’ policies when they turn 23. Many of these young folks don’t have the money to buy coverage on their own—and a lot of them can’t buy it at all because of, you guessed it, pre-existing conditions. That’s why young people comprise the biggest segment of the uninsured population. Because the Affordable Care Act allows parents to keep dependents on their policies until they turn 26, an estimated 2.5 million young people had become insured again as of the end of last year.

“Hands off my health care! If I lose my coverage because I lose my job, so be it!”

Millions of Americans fall into the ranks of the uninsured every year when they get laid off. That’s one reason the number of people without coverage swelled to 50 million during the recession. Many of them can’t afford to buy insurance on their own and many of them have—you guessed right again—pre-existing conditions and can’t buy it at any price. Starting in 2014, not only will the Affordable Care Act prohibit insurers from refusing to sell coverage to people of any age because of their medical history, it will also provide subsidies to low-income individuals and families to help them buy insurance.

“Hands off my health care! It’s not my problem if your insurance company dumps you when you get sick!”

To avoid paying claims, insurers for years have cancelled the coverage of policyholders when they got sick. A former nurse in Texas testified before Congress in 2009 about getting a cancellation notice from her insurer the day before she was to have a mastectomy because she had failed to note on her application for coverage that she had been treated for acne. The Affordable Care Act makes it illegal for insurers to cancel policies for any reason other than fraud or failure to pay premiums.

“Hands off my health care!” Maybe we ought to think that through a little bit more before we take to the streets with those words on our placards. Insurers who profited from the way things used to be will laugh all the way to the bank if you start waving those signs, but you and people you love might live to regret it. On the plus side, at least for the special interests, you probably won’t live as long.

Slogans versus substance in the battle over ObamaCare's future

Signs from a Tea Party protest in St. Paul, Minn.Flickr Creative Commons/Fibonacci Blue

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®