Tag: National Labor Relations Board

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Asserting Franchisor Can Be Jointly Liable With Its Franchisees

Schiff Hardin Law Firm

Earlier this week, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard F. Griffin, authorized the issuance of multiple complaints which include allegations that a franchisor, McDonald’s, USA, LLC, could be liable as ajoint employer with its franchisees for violations of theNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The text of the General Counsel’s authorization is available here.

Since 2012, McDonald’s, USA, LLC and its franchisees have been named in 181 unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB. In a memorandum issued to the Regional Directors, the General Counsel noted that 43 of those charges were found to have merit, while the remaining charges either were found to have no merit or are pending further investigation. The General Counsel’s action authorizes the regions in which the charges were filed to issue administrative complaints naming McDonald’s USA, LLC and its franchisees as respondents if the parties are unable to reach settlement in the 43 cases that have been found to have merit.

The authorization comes on the heels of an amicus brief filed by the General Counsel in June in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., urging the Board to adopt a new standard for determining joint-employer status. Under the current standard, the NLRB analyzes whether alleged joint employers share the ability to control or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984). Essential terms and conditions of employment include hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction of employees. Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). The putative joint employers’ control over these employment matters must be direct and immediate.

In the amicus brief, the General Counsel argued that the Board’s current standard for determining joint-employer status is significantly narrower than the traditional standard and ignores Congress’s intent that the term “employer” be construed broadly. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard that accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including how putative joint employers structure their commercial dealings. Under the proposed test, joint-employer status would exist if one of the entities wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence.

The NLRB has not yet decided whether to adopt the General Counsel’s proposed standard, and the Browning-Ferris case is currently pending before the Board.

Implications and Recommendations

Although the General Counsel’s action has sparked a flurry of debate over the proper test for determining joint-employer status, it remains unclear whether the NLRB will accept his position. If the NLRB decides to adopt a new joint-employer standard, it would likely expand the number of entities found to be joint employers and thus potentially liable for alleged unfair labor practices, and could have ramifications under other employment laws as well, including wage and hour and discrimination cases.

ARTICLE BY

Alexis Dominguez
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

Employee Codes of Conduct: Really? Requiring Someone To Use Information “Fairly And Lawfully” Can Be Illegal?

Allen Matkins Law Firm

Companies have lots of very good reasons for adopting codes of conduct.  These reasons include:

  • Ensuring compliance with applicable exchange listing rules (e.g., NYSE Rule 303A.10 and NASDAQ Rule 5610);
  • Minimizing the risk of securities law violations (e.g., Regulation FD and Rule 10b-5);
  • Protecting company assets (trade secrets as well as reputational assets);
  • Complying with contractual obligations requiring confidentiality; and
  • Complying with customer and employee privacy laws and regulations.

Thus, I was amazed to see a recent decision by a panel of the National Labor Relations Board finding the following language in a code of conduct to be unlawful:

Keep customer and employee information secure.  Information must be used fairly, lawfully and only for the purpose for which it was obtained.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market and United Food & Commercial Works Int’l Union, Cases 31-CA-077074 and 31-CA-080734 (July 31, 2014).   The NLRB found that this language violated employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.  Reversing the administrative law judge, the panel found that employees would reasonably construe the above language “to prohibit discussion and disclosure of information about other employees, such as wages and terms and conditions of employment”.  Really?  This admonition was included at page 16 of a 20 page booklet primarily dedicated to a variety of ethical matters.  In my view, it is arbitrary and capricious, if not just plain bizarre, to interpret this language as conveying any limitation on employees’ Section 7 rights.

ARTICLE BY

Keith Paul Bishop
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds D.C. Circuit Decision in Noel Canning

Jackson Lewis Logo

In a lengthy opinion authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, and drawing heavily on historical practice of Presidents and the Senate, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Noel Canning v. NLRB, concluding that President Obama’s three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 (Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn) were invalid. The Court upheld the right of the President to make recess appointments both inter- and intra-session, but held that it is the Senate that decides when it is in session by retaining the power to conduct business pursuant to its own rules. The Court also found that a recess of less than ten days “is presumptively too short” to permit the President to make a recess appointment, except in “unusual circumstances”, such as a “national catastrophe”. (The recess here was three days.) The Court also decided that the recess appointment power applies to appointments that first come into existence during a recess and to those that initially occur before a recess but continue to exist during a recess.

As a result of the decision, over 1,000 Board decisions likely are now invalid. According to the National Right to Work Foundation, 999 unpublished decisions and 719 published decisions (totaling 1,718) could be affected. The Chamber of Commerce estimates 1,302 decisions from August 27, 2011 through July 17, 2013 to be suspect.

Article By:

Howard M. Bloom
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C

Employer Email Policies on Chopping Block as General Counsel Seeks to Overrule Register Guard and Board Calls for Amicus Briefs

Proskauer

In a development of importance to both union and non-union employers, the NLRB General Counsel has asked the NLRB to overrule its 2007 decision in Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007).  In Register Guard, the Board had held that employers could bar employee use of the employer’s email for non-business purposes, including union or other communications protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, so long as the employer did so on a non-discriminatory basis.

The General Counsel now seeks a new rule that employees may use employer email for union or other Section 7 protected purposes so long as doing so does not impede production or workplace discipline. The Board has issued a notice the case, Purple Communications, Inc., Case Nos. 21-CA-095151, 21-RC-091531 and 21-RC-091584, inviting interested parties to file amicus briefs by June 16, 2014.

In its notice, the Board asked the amicus briefs to address the following questions:

  1. Should the Board reconsider its conclusion in Register Guard that employees do not have a statutory right to use their employer’s email system (or other electronic communications systems) for Section 7 purposes
  2. If the Board overrules Register Guard, what standard(s) of employee access to the employer’s electronic communications systems should be established? What restrictions, if any, may an employer place on such access, and what factors are relevant to such restrictions?
  3. In deciding the above questions, to what extent and how should the impact onthe employer of employees’ use of an employer’s electronic communicationstechnology affect the issue?
  4. Do employee personal electronic devices (e.g., phones, tablets), social media accounts, and/or personal email accounts affect the proper balance to be struck between employers’ rights and employees’ Section 7 rights to communicate about work-related matters? If so, how?
  5. Identify any other technological issues concerning email or other electronic communications systems that the Board should consider in answering the foregoing questions, including any relevant changes that may have occurred in electronic communications technology since Register Guard was decided.

How should these affect the Board’s decision?

The Board also invited amici to submit “empirical and other evidence”, which most likely means studies showing how employees use email in the workplace, how much productive time is lost because of over-use of email, and the like.  It is also possible the Board’s eventual decision could have an impact on other types of employee communications through various electronic devices and social media.

It has long been anticipated that the new Board and General Counsel would want to revisit the Register Guard decision.  Now that the time has come, it will be important for employers to engage as amici in an effort to shape the outcome and provide all Board members — including possibly dissenting ones — with both legal analysis and practical and operational considerations that should inform the Board’s policy choices in this important area.

Article By:

Ronald Meisburg
Of:
Proskauer Rose 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.

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.

The NLRB Revives Controversial Expedited Election Rules – National Labor Relations Board

Michael Best Logo

On February 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reissued its controversial rules aimed at expediting union elections in the workplace. This rule, referred to as the “Ambush Election Rule,” could limit an employer’s right to express its views to employees and respond to union statements. The proposed rules mirror the NLRB’s June 2011 proposal, which ultimately was struck down by a district court in May 2012.

Analogous to the June 2011 proposal, the NLRB’s most recent proposal seeks to significantly impact the current union election process. The proposed reforms are aimed at shortening the election cycle from the current median of 38 days from petition to election to as little as 10 to 21 days. The proposed reforms also would move resolution of voter eligibility determination to after the election; reduce the NLRB’s review of representation cases; expand employer disclosure of employee contact information (including e-mail addresses); and allow more electronic filing with the NLRB.

Despite reducing the amount of time an employer has to communicate its message or rebut the union’s statements, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce has stated the proposed rules are intended to “improve the process for all parties.” The NLRB is likely to issue a final rule governing union elections later this year.

Action Steps?

The NLRB has issued a proposed rule, and by law, will allow for public comments through April 7, 2014. Employers may direct comments regarding the proposed reforms to the NLRB here. Additionally, the NLRB will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules in Washington D.C. during the week of April 7, 2014, and employers may voice their concerns at the forum.

Finally, employers should consider conducting a vulnerability audit to identify any concerns that can be addressed now (rather than after a final rule is put in place) and should provide supervisors and management with training so they are prepared to address any potential NLRB election situation.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Are Union-Free Strikes Protected? The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) Thinks So.

Michael Best Logo

 

In June 2013, we issued a client alert discussing the efforts of unions and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to target the primarily union-free big box retailer and fast food industries. After describing how Target had come under scrutiny from the NLRB, the client alert detailed how the United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) and the UFCW-backed group “OUR Walmart” had been coordinating strikes and filing charges with the NLRB against Walmart. The client alert then foreshadowed: “[g]iven the Board’s recent penchant for union activism, do not be surprised if it takes a close look at Walmart’s policies and practices in the coming months.”

As predicted, the Board filed a consolidated complaint against Walmart on January 14, 2014 alleging the union-free retailer violated workers’ rights in response to coordinated strikes across 13 states. The complaint alleges dozens of Walmart supervisors and one corporate executive threatened, disciplined, surveilled, and/or terminated more than 60 workers in response to the union-free strikes.

The complaint is significant for two reasons: (1) the Board is taking the position that union-free workers have a protectable right to strike; and (2) the Board is testing its position against the nation’s largest employer. The Board views the union-free strikes as a form of protected concerted activity, and its press release states that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees employees the right to “act together to try to improve their wages and working conditions with or without a union.” The complaint alleges Walmart violated the NLRA by maintaining a policy that treats absences for participation in strikes as unexcused. The complaint also details alleged retaliatory disciplinary actions taken by Walmart supervisors at particular store locations, though many of the listed locations involved only a single worker being absent.

From an employer perspective, the Board’s position raises many questions. For example, how is a supervisor to know whether a non-union worker is participating in a “strike” or just absent? Can a single worker go on strike, or is there a minimum number of strikers for the activity to be “concerted”? Can strikers be permanently replaced? Are “intermittent” strikes prohibited? It is easy to see why union-free strikes create tough questions for union-free employers.

The Board’s actions against Walmart are worth watching as they come amidst a larger backdrop of worker protests and political debates over minimum wage and working conditions that are likely to remain in the spotlight for the foreseeable future. How courts ultimately grapple with the Board’s position and the resulting questions could have far-reaching effects on the labor market in 2014 and beyond.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP