Tag: labor

Business and Employee Groups Oppose Merger of OFCCP with EEOC

President Trump’s 2018 budget, released on May 23, proposes to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the end of FY 2018.  The proposed merger purports to result in “one agency to combat employment discrimination.”  The Trump administration asserts that the merger would “reduce operational redundancies, promote efficiencies, improve services to citizens, and strengthen civil rights enforcement.”

Both business groups and employee civil rights organizations have opposed the measure, albeit for different reasons.  The OFCCP is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, while the EEOC is an independent federal agency.  Although both deal with issues of employment discrimination, their mandates, functions and focus are different.  The OFCCP’s function is to ensure that federal government contractors take affirmative action to avoid discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability and protected veteran status.  The OFCCP, which was created in 1978, enforces Executive Order 11246, as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1975.  The EEOC administers and enforces several federal employment discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, gender identity, genetic information, and retaliation for complaining or supporting a claim of discrimination.  Its function is to investigation individual charges of discrimination brought by private and public sector employees against their employers.  The EEOC was established in 1965, following the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Business groups oppose the OFCCP’s merger into the EEOC due to concerns that it would create a more powerful EEOC with greater enforcement powers.  For example, the OFCCP conducts audits, which compile substantial data on government contractors’ workforces, while the EEOC possesses the power to subpoena employer records.  Combining these tools could provide the “new” EEOC with substantially greater enforcement power.  Civil rights and employee organizations oppose the merger, believing that overall it would result in less funding for the combined functions currently performed by each agency.

The budget proposal is consistent with the Trump administration’s goal to reduce costs and redundancies through a reorganization of governmental functions and elimination of executive branch agencies.  In light of opposition from both employers and employees, however, the measure lacks a powerful proponent; as a result, it is unlikely that the administration will succeed in effecting a combination, at least as it is currently proposed.

This post was written by Salvatore G. Gangemi of Murtha Cullina.

Trump’s Actual Impact on OSHA

In November, we attempted to look into the crystal ball to see what potential impact the new Trump administration could have on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Here are some of results so far, which on the whole, are favorable to employers who suffered under the “regulation by shaming” mantra of past Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels.

  • Budget Cuts – As predicted, on May 5, President Trump signed a spending bill that cuts the labor department’s discretionary spending budget by $83 million. This could limit some of OSHA’s enforcement efforts.

  • Recordkeeping as a Continuing Violation – The Volks rule, which was enacted by OSHA last December as a last minute rule in response to a loss, suffered through an adverse decision in the federal courts. The new rule established that an employer has a continuing duty to create accurate records of work-related employee injuries and illnesses. This effectively changed the statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations from six months to five years and six months. On April 3, President Trump signed a joint congressional resolution under the Congressional Review Act that overturned this rule. The law is now back to the original intent of Congress that the statute of limitations for all OSHA citations is six months. This is a significant win for employers who can focus their time on current substantive safety issues instead of reviewing documents for accuracy from up to five years ago.

  • Union Representatives in OSHA Inspections of Non-union Facilities – As mentioned in the prior post, I predicted that interpretation letters could change with the new appointment of the secretary of labor. One of the most controversial of these letters was the 2013 Fairfax memo regarding walkaround rights during an OSHA inspection. The memo stated that during an OSHA inspection of a non-union facility, a union representative could be designated as the employees’ “personal representative” even without representation election or voluntary recognition of the union as the exclusive representative of the employees. This was being challenged in court and then OSHA rescinded the Fairfax memo and agreed to revise the Field Operations Manual (FOM) for its inspectors to reflect the same change on April 25, 2017. The lawsuit was then dismissed as moot since OSHA rescinded the controversial memo. The letter was viewed as an overstep by OSHA into the area of labor relations covered by the NLRB, since it appeared to be motivated by giving unions more access to non-union employers for organization efforts rather than to assist in a safety inspection. This is another win for employers.

So far, the progress has been good for employers. We will just have to wait and see how other issues develop, including the electronic recordkeeping rule and non-discrimination standard (which limits blanket post-accident drug tests), which is being challenged in two separate lawsuits, as well as the silica standard, which is being challenged in court. The DOL has to decide how strongly it will defend these rules in court which will have a significant impact on how the courts may rule. Stay tuned for updates.

IRS Tax Treatment of Wellness Program Benefits

Business people doing yoga on floor in office

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel recently released a memorandum providing guidance on the proper tax treatment of workplace wellness programs. Workplace wellness programs cover a range of plans and strategies adopted by employers to counter rising healthcare costs by promoting healthier lifestyles and providing employees with preventive care. These programs take many forms and can encompass everything from providing certain medical care regardless of enrollment in health coverage, to free gym passes for employees, to incentivized participation- based weight loss programs. Due to the wide variation in such plans the proper tax treatment can be complicated. However, the following points from the IRS memo can help business owners operating or considering a wellness program evaluate their tax treatment.

First, the memo confirmed that coverage in employer-provided wellness programs that provide medical care is generally not included in an employee’s gross income under section 106(a), which specifically excludes employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan from employee gross income. 26 USC § 213(d)(1)(A) defines medical care as amounts paid for “the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,” transportation for such care, qualified long term care services, and insurance (including amounts paid as premiums).

Second, it was made clear that any section 213(d) medical care provided by the program is excluded from the employee’s gross income under section 105(b), which permits an employee to exclude amounts received through employer-provided accident or health insurance if it is paid to reimburse expenses incurred by the employee for medical care for personal injuries and sickness. The memo emphasized that 105(b) only applies to money paid specifically to reimburse the employee for expenses incurred by him for the prescribed medical care. This means that the exclusion in 105(b) does not apply to money that the employee would receive through a wellness program irrespective of any expenses he incurred for medical care. 26 CFR 1.105-2.

Third, any rewards, incentives or other benefits provided by the wellness program that are not medical care as defined by section 213(d) must be included in an employee’s gross income. This means that cash prizes given to employees as incentives to participate in a wellness program are part of the employee’s gross income and may not be excluded by the employer. However, non-money awards or incentives might be excludable if they qualify as de minimis fringe benefits (ones that are so small and infrequent that accounting for them is unreasonable or impracticable). 26 USC § 132(a)(4). The memo gives the example of a t-shirt provided as part of a wellness program as such an excludable fringe benefit, and notes that money is never a de minimis fringe benefit.

Fourth, payment of gym memberships or reimbursement of gym fees is a cash benefit, even when received through the wellness program, and must be included in gross income. This is because cash rewards paid as part of the wellness program do not qualify as reimbursements of medical care and cannot be a fringe benefit.

Fifth, where an employee chooses a salary reduction to pay premiums for healthcare coverage and the employer reimburses the employee for some or all of the premium amount under a wellness program, the reimbursement is gross income.

These points laid out in the IRS memo provide a solid foundation for understanding the tax treatment of workplace wellness programs and should be kept in mind by business owners deciding how to structure new wellness plans for their employees, or ensuring the tax compliance of existing plans.

Let’s Talk Turkey: Wage/Hour and Other Laws to Feast on Over Thanksgiving

We all know that employers do not receive “time off” from applicable employment laws during the holidays. To avoid unnecessary holiday headaches, be mindful of the following issues as you conduct your workplace holiday staffing and planning.

Comply with your Policies and Collective Bargaining Agreements

Remember to abide by the applicable holiday provisions of your policies, agreements, or collective bargaining agreements. Pay for unworked time on recognized holidays; how time worked on holidays is computed or paid; and eligibility requirements for receipt of holiday pay are often a matter of policy or contract. Breaching such provisions—or disparately enforcing them—can give rise to a claim, charge, or grievance.

Think Beyond your Holiday Policy—Comply with Wage Laws

Be mindful of wage payment laws when you are planning office closures to ensure that you do not run afoul of state requirements governing the time, frequency, and method of paying earned wages. Also, remember that time worked on a holiday should be counted as “hours worked” for purposes of overtime laws, regardless of whether you provide a holiday premium or other benefit.  Further, be careful about making deductions from exempt employees’ salaries for time off around the holidays so as not to jeopardize the exempt status—a company closure for the holidays is not listed among the Department of Labor’s enumerated instances of proper reasons to make deductions under the salary basis rules of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

No Break from Meal and Rest Period Laws

Even if your employees are frantically setting up holiday displays or assisting eager consumers on Black Friday, provide meal and rest periods in accordance with state law. Many states require that employers provide meal and break periods, and the frequency and timing of such periods are often dependent upon the total number of hours worked in a day. For instance, Illinois employers must allow a meal break for employees working 7.5 continuous hours or longer within 5 hours of starting work; New York’s Department of Labor guidelines specify requirements for a “noonday” meal period between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., with additional meal periods for shifts extending into specified evening hours.

Also, while bona fide meal breaks of a sufficient duration can generally be unpaid, beware that restrictions, duties, or parameters on such breaks might run afoul of your state’s law and can make a meal period compensable.

A “Blue” Christmas

If your business has operations in one of the few states that impose “Blue Law” requirements for business operations on holidays, then be aware of obligations or restrictions that might apply. For instance, if you operate in Massachusetts, then you might be required to obtain a local permit and/or be subject to extra pay or other standards for employees working on a holiday. In Rhode Island, you might be subject to an overtime pay rate on holidays or other requirements.

Be sure to check your state and local laws to confirm applicable standards.

Accommodate Observation of Holidays Due to Religious Beliefs

Finally, remember that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and many state or local laws require employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. “Religion” can include not only traditional, organized religions such as Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also sincerely held religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, or only held by a small number of people.

Thus, while your company may be closed on Christmas Day, you may need to allow an employee time off to celebrate a religious holiday that your company does not recognize. Businesses can accommodate in the form of time off, modifications to schedules, shift substitutions, job reassignments, or other modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Ford UAW Workers Defy Logic Of Ricky Bobby With New Tentative Agreement

If you ain’t first, you’re last. Not so, say the Ford UAW workers whose bargaining committee recently reached a new tentative agreement with Ford. While Ford was the last to reach a tentative agreement with the UAW, if the membership ratifies the tentative agreement, the UAW workers at Ford stand to receive a better overall deal than their counterparts at Fiat Chrysler and GM. Highlights of the tentative agreement with Ford include:

  • Investment of $9 billion in the U.S. by Ford over the life of the agreement;

  • $8,500 ratification bonus along with a $1,500 profit-sharing prepayment;

  • Entry level employees can progress to the Tier 1 wage rates within 8 years; and

  • $70,000 retirement incentive for eligible employees.

As with the ratification process for Fiat Chrysler and GM, the UAW membership at Ford will now be asked to vote in the coming days to approve the tentative agreement. The fact that the Ford tentative agreement is already better than the tentative agreements with Fiat Chrysler and GM should aid in the ratification process. Additionally, the UAW has already seen firsthand what works and what does not when it comes to seeking ratification of a tentative agreement in the current automotive climate.

While the bargaining process at Ford seems to be headed in the right direction, GM is still waiting to announce the ratification of its tentative agreement with the UAW. Despite a majority of the hourly production workers supporting the tentative agreement, a majority of the skilled-trades workers voted “no.” Based on the UAW’s constitution, the UAW is required to meet with the skilled-trades members to hear their complaints. Those meetings began this week. We will have to wait and see if the UAW attempts to go back to the bargaining table based on the issues raised by the skilled-trades workers.

Article By Michael W. Groebe of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

‘Fight for $15’ Walk-Outs and Protests Continue; Are You Prepared for November 10?

national labor relations boardContinuing its three-year campaign, “Fight for $15” on November 4, 2015, announced plans for worker strikes and protests at fast food restaurants in 270 U.S. cities on November 10. The protests, timed to occur one year prior to the 2016 presidential election, is calculated to send a message to voters and candidates. Protests will culminate with a march on the November 10 Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee.

While the fast food workers involved in the walk-outs are not represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a labor union, the walk-outs have largely been organized and funded by the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). Employers with union contracts who have lived with the possibility of strikes are generally more familiar with the rights and obligations of employees and employers under the labor law than their non-union counterparts. But now that walk-outs and work stoppages are becoming an accepted strategy in the non-union workforce, non-union employers need to know the rules, too. Indeed, over three years of protests, scores of unfair labor practice charges have been filed against non-union employers alleged to have interfered with employee participation in protected activity. Moreover, on November 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) upheld a decision finding that a St. Louis Chipotle Grill unlawfully discharged an employee because he engaged in fight-for-$15 protests.

“Protected, Concerted Activity”

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have the right to engage in group activity for the purposes of “mutual aid and protection.” Thus, whether a union is involved, if two or more employees acting in concert walk off the job to protest work conditions or enforce demands relating to the terms of their employment, the walk-out, or strike, generally is protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. (Quickie, intermittent work stoppages might not be.) Under these circumstances, it would be unlawful to discipline or discharge (or otherwise disadvantage) employees for walking off the job. It also means that unless the employees have been permanently replaced (discussed below), the strikers are entitled to be returned to their jobs when they make an unconditional offer to do so.

Lawful Employer Responses to Protected Concerted Activity

Employers are not without rights in dealing with protected concerted activity (“PCA”). First and foremost, employers have a right to continue business operations. This can be accomplished by assigning managers or hiring replacement workers to do the work of the employees who walked off the job. If the strike is not caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers either as permanent or temporary. (If the strike is caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers only as temporary.)

If replacement workers are designated as temporary, when the strikers offer to return to work, the employer is obligated to lay off the temporary workers and put the strikers back to work.

When the employer designates the replacements as permanent, when the strikers offer to return to work, they are placed on a preferential hiring list. In that situation, the employer is not obligated to lay off the replacements, but when positions open up through normal attrition, the employer first has to offer those openings to the former strikers who are on the preferential hiring list.

Walk-outs in the fast food industry have been short, however, typically rendering the hiring of replacement workers impractical. As a practical matter, employers may have to rely on managers or other employees who are not participating in the strike.

Violence and Other Picket Line Misconduct

Employees lose the protection of the NLRA if they engage in certain improper conduct. This includes intermittent or “quickie strikes.” Generally, strikers lose the protection of the NLRA when they engage in a pattern of striking for short periods, returning to work briefly, and then striking again. By engaging in this type of conduct, strikers effectively deny the employer the ability to run its business either by relying on its regular employees or by hiring replacements. The NLRA does not prevent the employer from issuing discipline or discharging employees who participate. However, before taking action, employers should consult counsel and be absolutely certain the particular job action is unprotected.

Other activities that are unprotected include stay-ins or sit-down strikes. A stay-in or sit-down strike occurs when employees refuse to work and also refuse to vacate the employer’s premises. Strikers seek to force the employer to accede to their demands by bringing operations to a halt, preventing the employer from operating. This type of trespasser activity generally is unprotected.

Slow-downs are another tactic sometimes used to impede production. Work is deliberately performed ever more slowly; the employer cannot conduct business and customers fume. Slow-downs are not protected and can be addressed by discipline or discharge.

Lawful Responses to Unprotected Activity

Strikers, of course, are allowed to picket on public property near their place of employment to publicize a labor dispute. They, however, are not privileged to engage in threats, physical assaults, trespass, or property destruction. When they do, employers have these remedies available:

1. Law Enforcement: The most immediate relief available is to call the police. Just because employees ostensibly are engaged in a strike does not immunize them from prosecution when they commit crimes.

2. State Court Injunction: Another remedy is to seek a state court injunction to prohibit violence. This is particularly helpful when there is mass picketing, obstruction of traffic, and blockages of entrances, and the police have difficulty controlling the situation. In these kinds of cases, employers seek court orders prohibiting further violence or destructive activities and limiting to a reasonable number the number of picketers at a particular location at any given time, so police can assure public order.

3. Employer Discipline and Discharge: If the threats, violence and property destruction are egregious enough, the employees involved lose the protection of the NLRA, which means they can be discharged or disciplined. (However, a full investigation should be conducted before the employer takes action to determine what the employee actually did or said. In addition, investigation of past discipline in similar situations not involving protected concerted activity is important because the rules (under the NLRA) prohibit discrimination against employees who engage in such activity. In other words, if, in the past, an employee who was not participating in protected concerted activity engaged in violence for which he was suspended, an employee who engages in similar violence while partaking in protected concerted activity generally also should be suspended, rather than discharged.) Employees should not suffer greater discipline for their misconduct because it occurs while they engage in activity the law protects.

While there is no bright line for evaluating when misconduct becomes unprotected, some general guides may be kept in mind. For example, simple name-calling, momentary blocking of ingress and egress at employer facilities, and simple trespass onto an employer’s property, without any accompanying destruction or violence, probably will not be sufficient to cause the employee to lose the protection of the NLRA. However, physical assaults, participating in extended blocking of ingress or egress, and property destruction are generally the types of conduct that will cause an employee to lose the protection of the NLRA.

Article By Jonathan J. Spitz, Philip B. Rosen, Timothy J. Ryan & Peter N. Moss of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Target Faces First Ever Union

The Wall Street Journal reports the NLRB has rejected an appeal from Target Corp. seeking to invalidate an employee vote in favor of unionization.  In September, a “micro-unit” of about one dozen pharmacy workers in Brooklyn, NY voted in favor of unionization.  The company appealed, but the NLRB affirmed the vote yesterday.

As reported in the article, “The group of less than a dozen employees in Brooklyn, N.Y., would be the first union among Target’s nearly 350,000 employees, marking a significant milestone for a company that has fought to keep unions out of its stores.”  The complete article can be found here.

Article By John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Fifth Circuit Rules Employer-Mandated Transit Time May Make Lunch Break Compensable

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ruled recently that security guards’ “off-the-clock” meal periods may be compensable when they were required to travel for 10 to 12 minutes from their work stations to get their meals.  Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., No. 14-60637 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2015) available here.

The private security guards in Naylor were required to leave their work sites and travel to other locations for meals or breaks in order to preserve the appearance of the worksite. The court reasoned that a jury could find this mandated transit time predominately benefited the employer, rather than the employee, making it compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The court noted that, when this mandated round trip travel time to break areas was only a few minutes in duration, it is “de minimis” and would not transform the 30-minute break to compensable time. However, at some point, employer-mandated travel time during an employee’s lunch break shortens the length of the break enough to make it a compensable “rest” period. Under the FLSA, “rest” periods of 20 minutes or less are generally compensable because they are considered to benefit the employer by rejuvenating the employee. Ten to twelve minutes of transit time cut too much into the “lunch breaks.”

Significantly, the court did not set a bright line rule for the precise number of transit minutes an employer may require away from the work station during a lunch break before the entire break becomes compensable.

The conversion to compensable time may entitle the employees to both compensation for the 30-minute meal periods and resultant weekly overtime once that time is added to other hours worked.

The ruling also raises questions of whether the mandatory transit time rationale applies to breaks required in other contexts, such as offsets to “30-minute” break requirements under collective bargaining agreements or state laws, or to other break activities, such as clothes changing, going through security or reassigning equipment. Providing employees written notice of which break-related activities are required and clearly stating their options to eat meals and engage in other break activities without mandatory transit or other activities that may reduce their meal periods might preclude any such issues.

Article By Robert E. Sheeder, Nancy M. O’Connor & Clayton M. Davis of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

© 2015 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

New Rules Provide Insights for Pregnancy Accommodations in Illinois

Since the start of the year, all employers in Illinois with one or more employees are required to provide accommodations for pregnant workers for conditions associated with pregnancy and childbirth.  Now the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and the Illinois Human Rights Commission (IHRC) have issued a set of proposed joint rules to assist with interpretation and enforcement of the new law.

Under amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2015, employers and labor organizations must make reasonable accommodations for any medical or common condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, unless the employer or labor organization can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the ordinary operations of the business of the employer or labor organization.

Beyond the information already provided in the law itself, the rules go into further detail as to the types of accommodations that employers must consider and how an employer should engage in the interactive process when considering a request for an accommodation. The rules also provide detailed sections on consideration of job transfers and time off as reasonable accommodations.

Of particular interest is the guidance concerning when an employer can seek medical certification of an employee’s need for a reasonable accommodation. While the rules make clear that employers are entitled to obtain information in order to evaluate if a requested reasonable accommodation may be necessary, the request needs to be limited to:

  • The medical justification for the requested accommodation;

  • A description of the reasonable accommodation medically advisable;

  • The date the reasonable accommodation became medically advisable; and

  • The probable duration of the reasonable accommodation.

Moreover, employers may request documentation from the job applicant’s or employee’s health care provider concerning the need for the requested accommodation if:

  • The employer would request the same or similar documentation from a job applicant or employee regarding the need for reasonable accommodation for conditions related to disability;

  • The employer’s request for documentation is job-related and consistent with business necessity; and

  • The information sought is not known or readily apparent to the employer.

Under the rules as proposed by the IDHR and IHRC, the determination of whether an employer’s request for documentation from the employee’s healthcare provider concerning the need for a reasonable accommodation is job-related or consistent with business necessity will depend upon the totality of the circumstances, including  factors such as whether the need for reasonable accommodation is readily apparent;  whether the job applicant or employee is able to explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her pregnancy condition;  the employer’s reasons for requesting the information; and  the degree to which the requested accommodation would impact the ordinary operations of the employer’s business if it were granted by the employer.

If an employee needs a reasonable accommodation beyond the probable duration identified by her healthcare provider, the employer may request additional information from the health care provider.

It is also important to note that, under the rules, medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth need not constitute a disability within the meaning of the Illinois Human Rights Act and may be transitory in nature.

The rules, which were published in the Illinois Register, are expected to go into effect sometime in October.  Once fully adopted, the rules will be found at 56 Ill. Admin. Code 2535.10 et seq. For now, they can be found in the Illinois Register. And if you are an employer in Illinois and you have not yet posted the notice required under the new law, you can print a copy from the Illinois Department of Human Rights website.

Article By Jennifer Cerven of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Department of Labor Glitch Prevents PERM Filings re: Immigration

A programming glitch, which occurred during a software update implemented by the Department of Labor (DOL) on September 1, 2015, prevented some employers from being able to file their PERM applications, the DOL announced today on its website. The DOL explained that the malfunction precluded employers from completing some of the ETA Form 9089 online.

The problem with the Permanent Labor Certification Case Management System (CMS) continues and the DOL has directed employers who are unable to complete and file an ETA Form 9089 online to mail in their PERM applications to the Atlanta National Processing Center. The DOL is authorizing those employers who tried and could not file a PERM application online between September 1, 2015 and September 11, 2015, only, to include documentation demonstrating that information in their ETA Form 9089 was affected by the programming glitch.

If your PERM application was affected last week, you must submit your ETA Form 9089 and supporting documentation before September 30, 2015. Please see the DOL’s Employment & Training Administration’s web page for filing instructions here.

Article By Rebecca B. Schechter of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.