Tag: NLRB

A Biden Board at the NLRB: What to Expect and When

This past Labor Day, President-elect Joe Biden told a group of union supporters that he would be “the strongest labor president you have ever had.” Just how true those words will be hinges on what party controls the Senate after the dust settles on this election season.

As part of his labor goals, Biden has championed the PRO Act, a substantive and drastically pro-union rewrite of the 85-year-old National Labor Relations Act that was passed by the House in early 2020. The PRO Act would codify the ambush election rule and micro-unit policy, neuter employers’ ability to mount counter-campaigns to union organizing attempts, and weaken right-to-work laws that protect employee free choice. The ambitious legislation would also permit the NLRB to issue heavy monetary penalties on employers for violating the NLRA and would more strictly require bargaining after an initial certification of a new union.

The legislation would be destructive to companies, but it seems unlikely to become law in today’s political landscape. Indeed, a less ambitious pro-labor bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, failed to pass a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2009.

But even if the PRO Act does not come to fruition, one thing is clear: there will be changes. Employers have benefitted greatly from the pro-employer NLRB over the past four years. We have seen a flurry of positive changes including wins on issues like joint employers, micro-units, abolishing the ambush election rule, and making it easier for employers to make unilateral changes in the workplace.

When and how change might occur under President-elect Biden will largely depend on when he is able to gain control of the NLRB.

The NLRB is currently composed of three Republican members and one Democrat, with one vacant seat. Assuming President-elect Biden is able to fill the vacant seat, his first opportunity to flip control of the Board in his favor will come in August 2021, when Trump appointee Bill Emanuel’s seat expires. NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb’s term expires in November 2021. Even then, control depends on the Senate confirming both the new general counsel and Board member positions.

In short, we could expect there to be pro-union changes at the NLRB beginning in the fall or winter of 2021. This timeline is similar to the beginning of the Trump administration, when we saw the biggest flurry of pro-employer rulings come in December 2017 after Republicans gained control of the NLRB. Once Biden gains control, we might see a strategy similar to that employed by the Trump and Obama Boards. A mix of precedent-overturning NLRB decisions and rulemaking could be in store for employers.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more articles on the NLRB, visit the National Law Review Labor & Employment section.

Black Lives Matter, Racial Unrest and Corporate Culture – How Do Employers Respond?

As the daily news continues to show protests and calls for justice in response to the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police officers, there is, unsurprisingly, a desire from employees to hear from their employers regarding the ongoing violence and racial unrest in our communities and across the country. Many employers recognized the gravity of the racial unrest by celebrating, for the first time, Juneteenth on June 19, 2020, a holiday celebrating the emancipation of slaves. But is that enough? How do employers respond?

As a practical matter, employers must be aware of the application of Constitutional free speech protections, employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act and state laws that may apply to expressive employee conduct, as detailed in our previous post.

Beyond that, employers can choose the level of their response and engagement, or choose to do nothing at all—there is no right or wrong answer or a “one size fits all” solution. The most common reaction from employers is to acknowledge the unrest and issue a statement of support. Many employers have also chosen to make a public announcement expressing solidarity and support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Though these responses are important, they fail to accomplish the more ambitious goal of many employers, which is to articulate and implement a strategy for lasting and real change within their own workplace and beyond. This action requires substantial reflection, consideration, time and effort.

So, for employers looking to do more, where do they start?

  • Leadership: Good leaders serve as good models. Leaders can lead by example and provide a safe workplace where all employees feel respected and included. As it pertains to the current environment, leaders can be open about their own lack of knowledge and share their growth and experiences with their workforce.
  • Anti-Discrimination Policies: Employers can review their policies regarding equal employment opportunity and workplace discrimination. Though most employers articulate such policies as a matter of course, it is important to reinforce these policies and remind employees of what is expected of them and to reassure employees who may be feeling vulnerable at this time.
  • Diversity Initiatives: Employers can focus on building diversity within their ranks by ensuring that recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement are truly objective and based on merit. Employers can also consider implementing a version of the National Football League’s recently-revised “Rooney Rule,” wherein at least two non-white candidates must be considered for open head coaching positions, and one non-white candidate must be considered for coordinator, senior football operations or general manager positions. Forming a diversity committee or task force is another way to ensure that minority members of your workforce are being heard and understood by management.
  • Awareness: Employers can educate their employees about prejudice and racism in its various forms; this can consist of formal training or open forums in which employees can communicate with one another and, importantly, with their co-workers of color. Employers can also make educational materials available for employees.
  • Community Involvement: Employers can publicly support the movement in the form of donations or activism. Doing so can create a sense of pride among your workforce, and it can also help in attracting future hires that share the principles of your workplace.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

ARTICLE BY Anne Marie Schloemer at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

For more on employer-employee conduct see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

NLRB Approves Company’s Baseball Cap Rule

Under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), employers are permitted to maintain uniform and dress code policies in the workplace, so long as such policies do not prohibit employees from wearing union insignia, absent special circumstances, such as health and safety concerns. While seemingly straightforward, application of this rule can be quite meticulous in practice. A recent National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) case, World Color (USA) Corp., a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Quad Graphics Inc., 369 NLRB No. 104 (June 12, 2020), provides guidance as to when an employer can restrict apparel logos at work.

When Can You Limit Apparel to Company Logos?

World Color (USA) Corp., is a Wisconsin company that maintains a facility in Nevada, where it prints commercial inserts for newspapers.

In early 2011, World Color distributed a set of mandatory guidelines to its employees containing a uniform and dress code policy requiring that all employees wear authorized company uniforms as a condition of employment, and to dress and groom professionally at all times. The guidelines permitted employees to accessorize the uniform, but required the accessorizing to be “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules.” The guidelines further required that if “hair… could potentially get caught in [production equipment], it must be secured… with a hairnet or other means. Baseball caps are prohibited except for [company] baseball caps worn with the bill facing forward.” World Color further prohibited wearing buttons and pins on the production floor as a safety hazard.

After the union filed a charge, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the policy was unlawful because it prohibited employees from wearing baseball caps with union logos and from displaying union insignia on hats.

After several appeals, however, the Board found that the policy did not prohibit employees from engaging in the protected activity of wearing caps bearing union insignia. Rather, the cap policy merely required employees to wear a company cap to align with the overall company uniform. The Board noted that employees were not prohibited from wearing union insignia on the company cap as long as they were “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules”. As such, the Board found that the uniform policy was lawful because it permitted employees to wear union insignias on company caps as long as they did not pose a safety risk.

What This Decision Means for Employers

Uniform and dress code rules are just one of a great number of issues that employers face in ensuring that their workplace policies comply with the mandates of the NLRA. The NLRA applies to almost all private sector employers nationwide, whether their employees are currently represented by a union or not. Employers should be aware of the level of scrutiny that can be placed on their workplace policies — by unions, by ALJs, and by the Board. Employers should be on the look-out for uniform and dress code provisions that:

  • Specifically prohibit wearing union insignia;

  • Broadly prohibit wearing all non-company insignia, even without reference to unions;

  • Require company or supervisor approval or authorization of union insignia;

  • Unreasonably limit the size and shape of union insignia on uniforms;

  • Prohibit union insignia without documented specific and legitimate safety reasons.

We recommend that employers consult with experienced labor counsel to revise and review their workplace policies to fully comply with all state and federal requirements, including the NLRA. This way, employers will be in the best position to protect the right to efficiently and effectively maintain their businesses. Moreover, employers should be aware that even seemingly minor violations of the NLRA may compromise the ability to assert their rights in other contexts, such as possible threats of union organizing.

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

For more on dress code policies, see the National Law Review Labor and Employment law section.

NLRB: Federal Court in DC Issues Promised Opinion on Election Regulations

As indicated in our previous blog on this topic, on May 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a two page order invalidating five elements of the NLRB’s 2019 election regulation, based on Count One of the plaintiff’s complaint.  On June 7, the court issued its promised memorandum opinion further explaining that order.

The opinion makes three key points.

First, the Court noted that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the norm is for notice and comment rule making.  An exception in the APA, however, permits agencies to forego notice and comment requirements when promulgating “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”  5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(A). The NLRB had relied on this exception to promulgate the election rule without notice and comment. As the Court stated, “The nub of the instant dispute is the NLRB’s valiant effort to shoehorn five parts of its 2019 Election Rule into this narrow classification.” Slip op. at 28.

Following a thorough discussion of the five parts of the rule it had held invalid in its May 30 order, the Court concluded: “[T]he challenged provisions carry many of the indicia of substantive rules — i.e., they grant rights and impose obligations; they produce ‘significant effects on private interests’; and they ‘foreclose alternative courses of action’ or ‘conclusively bind the . . .      affected private parties.’ . . . Therefore, this Court finds the NLRB’s promulgation of these particular [five] rules without engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking violated the APA.” Slip op. at 42-42 (citation omitted).

Second, the Court found that the five invalidated parts of the election regulation were severable from the remainder of the election rule. The Court rejected AFL-CIO’s argument that the election regulation should be invalidated in its entirety. Slip op. at 43-51. The Court stated that its severability ruling was not prejudical to plaintiffs, however, who are “always free to press an independent basis for setting aside the remainder of the rule and ask the court to do so . . . .” Slip op. at 48 (emphasis in original).

Indeed, the plaintiff’s complaint had three additional counts alleging that the election rule was arbitrary and capricious in whole and in part, and was contrary the National Labor Relations Act.  In a footnote, the Court observed: “[T]he AFL-CIO might well have argued that . . . the Court should . . . proceed to reach the merits of its alternative claims . . . . But for whatever reason, the AFL-CIO maintained that this Court need not reach its other claims, apparently assuming that the Court would agree with its severability analysis.” Slip op. at 48, n. 13.

Third, Court made it clear that the NLRB would have very broad discretion in dealing with the Court’s remand of the remaining rules for consideration in light of the Court’s opinion and order.   “[T]he agency decides what happens next when all or part of a challenged action has been invalidated.”  Slip op. at 46 (emphasis in original).

In a footnote, the Court held: “Thus, no matter how illogical it might seem to this Court for the NLRB to proceed to enforce the remaining portions of the 2019 Election Rule, it is up to the agency to determine which otherwise lawful policy proscriptions it wishes to adopt and enforce, and a simple remand of the matter gives the agency the best opportunity to make that determination in the first instance.”  Slip op. at 47, n. 12.

Following the Court’s May 30 order, the NLRB had swiftly acted to implement the remaining election regulations.  The AFL-CIO also filed a motion for clarification of the May 30 order seeking, among other things, a ruling on the swiftness of the NLRB’s action.  The Court signaled its inclination to deny that motion in its memorandum opinion, stating that “no matter how swiftly the agency undertakes to make that decision  . . . [courts] ‘do not, and cannot, police agency deliberations as a general matter . . . .’ Thus, the AFL-CIO’s recent motion . . . raises an issue that is plainly non-justiciable.”  Slip op. at 48, n. 13.

While the Court’s ruling, and the parties’ respective reactions to it, paint a bit of a muddy picture on what comes next, it is clear that there are still other shoes to drop in this case.  The Board has indicated its intent to appeal the court’s decision invalidating the five elements of the election rule.  The AFL-CIO may re-assert the counts of its complaint not addressed in the Court’s decision, or make additional arguments based on the NLRB’s actions on remand, as further grounds for invalidating the entire election rule.  Or, it may file its own appeal of the Court’s decision seeking appellate review of the Court’s decision not to deal with the other counts in the complaint.

For now, the NLRB will conduct elections in accordance with the undisturbed portions of the election rules, but how they may be impacted by further court litigation is unknown.  It therefore will be very important for employers involved in representation cases to stay up to speed on developments in this dynamic arena.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more NLRB decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

NLRB Ends Suspension of Union Representation Elections

Amid the ever-increasing impact of the COVID-19 crisis across the country, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced on Wednesday that the two-week freeze on representation elections currently in effect would end on April 3, 2020.  In the weeks leading up to the nationwide postponement of elections, which included both manual and mail ballot elections, the Board implemented an agency-wide telework policy and announced the closure of several Regional Offices.  According to the Board’s website, at least six Regional Offices remained closed as of March 30, 2020, with another 14 Regional and Subregional Offices closed to the public.

In the press release announcing the moratorium on elections, the Board stated that the two-week suspension was “necessary to ensure the health and safety of our employees, as well as those members of the public who are involved in the election process.”

Concerning the resumption of elections, NLRB Chairman John Ring stated on Wednesday that the Board’s “General Counsel now has advised that appropriate measures are available to permit elections to resume in a safe and effective manner, which will be determined by Regional Directors.” Neither that announcement nor any other documents made public by the NLRB to date have explained those measures, though most observers anticipate that the NLRB will move to a greater if not exclusive reliance on employees voting by mail ballots.

In a letter to Chairman Ring the day before the NRLB announced that it would resume elections, Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) urged the Board “to permit Regional Directors to direct elections to take place as soon as practicable if, in their discretion, the elections can safely be done, especially when considering the possibility of mail ballots.”  The announcement the Board issued the following day, however, does not require that forthcoming elections be conducted by mail ballot only, or provide any specific parameters for conducting elections as the effects of the COVID-19 crisis continue to mount.

As a practical matter, mail ballot elections appear to be the most likely manner of conducting elections in the immediate future given the growing restrictions implemented by the Federal, state, and local governments to curb the spread of COVID-19 cases.  Informally, some NLRB Regional Offices have indicated that they are preparing guidance regarding procedures for the resumption of elections, and will release such guidance once finalized.  Other Regional Offices have indicated that they are not presently scheduling any elections, even as the two-week suspension of elections concludes.   At least one Regional office has begun informing parties that the ballots will be counted via Skype conferences and not in person following the voting by mail.

Given the differing routes that Regional Offices currently appear to be taking, as well as the varying impact of the COVID-19 crisis in different areas of the country, it appears that Regional Offices will evaluate local conditions and resume elections based on pertinent circumstances.

Employers and advocates should remain up to date on the legal restrictions applicable to the areas in which workforces are located, as well as any guidance issued by Regional Offices, and be prepared to navigate the Board’s representation procedures, implement communication strategies, and monitor the election process without the in-person interactions normally accompanying election proceedings.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more from the NLRB, see the National Law Review Employment Law section.

Protected Activity or Illegal Harassment? Clarification May Be Coming.

It is a difficult balance for employers between respecting the rights to speech and other protected activity of their employees and avoiding a hostile workplace created by such speech. All too often employees may express views that are protected, but in ways that may be intimidating to their co-workers and create a hostile work environment. This tricky balance may soon gain much needed clarification. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals, in issuing a decision in the case of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. NLRB, 945 F.3d 546 (D.C.Cir. 2019) set up the possibility.

The case involved an employee who was notified of his termination after writing “whore board” on the employer’s overtime signup sheet by way of protest of the employer’s newly adopted overtime policy. The administrative judge had found that the speech was protected under the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(1) and that it was an unfair trade practice by illegally restraining the employee’s ability to participate in union activity under Section 8(a)(3).

While the D.C. Circuit agreed with the administrative law judge and the NLRB that the employee had been protected under the Act, it faulted the NLRB’s analysis for failing to take into consideration the employer’s “obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws to maintain a harassment-free environment.” 945 F.3d 546, 551.  The court then remanded the case to the NLRB to consider the balance between the employee’s protected activities and the employer’s responsibility to provide a harassment-free environment. This will potentially give the NLRB a chance to establish a framework in which to balance these types of cases.

The employer, in its arguments set forth two different proposed tests that could have found the employee’s speech to be unprotected due to the vulgar and offensive manner in which it was done. The company put forth a totality of the circumstances test, which would take into account the company’s anti-harassment policies in effect at the time. The employer alternatively proposed that the NLRB adopt the similar four-part test set forth in Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB No. 107 (1979) that would take into consideration: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice.

The test that is chosen will have a substantial effect on how employers can go about protecting their employees from harassment and intimidation while not running afoul of the Act. Great attention should be paid to the result.

© 2020 by Raymond Law Group LLC.

For more on NLRA Protected Speech, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

National Labor Relations Board Tightens Standard for Joint Employer Status

A business is a joint employer of another employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, according to a recently unveiled and long-awaited final rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This means that a business must exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over such issues as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision and work direction. The rule, which takes effect on April 27, 2020, tightens the legal test the NLRB uses to determine whether workers are jointly employed by affiliate businesses, including franchisors and franchisees.

Specifically, the new rule substantially tightens the standard for joint employer status articulated by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. In that decision, the NLRB departed from a half-century’s worth of precedent in determining that it could consider employers who exercised indirect control over the terms and conditions of another employer’s employees, or who reserved the right to exercise such control, as joint employers. The new rule expressly rejects this standard, making clear that neither “indirect” control nor a reservation of right to control terms and conditions of employment is sufficient, on its own, to establish joint employer status. The new rule returns the NLRB to its pre-Browning-Ferris jurisprudence, which required actual and direct control. The new rule also notes that “sporadic, isolated, or de minimus” direct control will not be enough to warrant a finding of joint employment.

The issue of joint employer status is significant for businesses because workers and the unions that represent them can collectively bargain with joint employers and hold them jointly liable for unfair labor practices, which are violations of federal labor law. The Browning-Ferris decision, with its broader test for joint employer status, engulfed more contractors and franchisors into costly and time-consuming labor disputes and contract negotiations. By rejecting the Browning-Ferris standard, the NLRB’s new narrower test brings certainty to this area of law by ensuring that labor disputes and contract bargaining only involve those contractors and/or franchisors that exercise direct control over the employees of another employer. NLRB Chairman Jon Ring made this very point when he explained that “employers will now have certainty in structuring their business relationships, [and] employees will have a better understanding of their employment circumstances.”

This new rule is particularly important to franchisors and comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new joint-employer rule, which also affected franchisors. Since the Browning-Ferris decision, there has been uncertainty about how much “control” is too much. This new NLRB rule provides welcomed clarity for franchisors, and will allow franchisors to provide more operational support and guidance to franchisees, which should result in franchisees having the opportunity to run their small businesses in a manner that will make a difference in their communities. Franchisors can protect their brands through appropriate brand standards and require franchisees to meet those standards without the heightened risk of being deemed a joint employer of their franchisees’ employees.

However, franchisors must be mindful of various state joint employer regulations, which may be broader in scope than the new rule, as well as plaintiffs’ lawyers asserting claims based on control theories. Franchisors should continue to review their business models and business practices (training, technology and field support) to ensure they are not involved in the exercise of control over a franchisee’s employees. Franchisors also should appropriately address these issues in their franchise agreements and operations manuals.

In sum, the NLRB’s new joint employer test is a win for employers, returning the NLRB’s joint-employer status jurisprudence to the narrower direct and actual control standard. Under this new test, contractors and franchisors who do not want to become joint employers should be careful to avoid exercising direct control over another employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including wages and benefits. The new rule’s clarity allows businesses to know where they stand as a potential joint employer and to prepare accordingly.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on NLRB decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

New NLRB Rule Defining Joint-Employer Status to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board has announced the issuance of its final rule governing joint-employer status. The new rule, which was first proposed in September 2018 and has been the subject of extensive public comment, will become effective April 27, 2020.

The critical elements for finding a joint-employer relationship under the new rule is the possession and the exercise of substantial direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by another employer.  The essence of the new rule is described in the Board’s February 25, 2020 press release:

To be a joint employer under the final rule, a business must possess and exercise substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees. The final rule defines key terms, including what are considered “essential terms and conditions of employment,” and what does, and what does not, constitute “direct and immediate control” as to each of these essential employment terms. The final rule also defines what constitutes “substantial” direct and immediate control and makes clear that control exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis is not “substantial.”

Evidence of indirect and/or contractually reserved control over essential employment terms may be a consideration for finding joint-employer status under the final rule, but it cannot give rise to such status without substantial direct and immediate control. Importantly, the final rule also makes clear that the routine elements of an arm’s-length contract cannot turn a contractor into a joint employer.

The new rule marks a return to a standard similar to that which the Board followed from 1984 until 2015.  In 2015, in Browning-Ferris Industries, the Board adopted a much more liberal test under which a finding that the putative joint employer possessed indirect influence and the ability (including through a reserved contractual right) to influence terms and conditions, regardless of whether the putative joint employer actually exercised such influence or control, could result in it being held to be a joint-employer of a second employer’s employee.

As a practical matter, the standard under the Board’s new rule should make it much more difficult to establish that a company is a joint-employer of a supplier, contractor, franchisee, or other company’s employees. The new rule will mean that a party claiming joint-employer status to exist will need to demonstrate with evidence that the putative joint-employer doesn’t just have a theoretical right to influence the other employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but that it has actually exercised that right in a substantial, direct and immediate manner.

This new rule is likely to make it much more difficult for unions to successfully claim that franchisors are joint-employers with their franchisees, and that companies are joint-employers of personnel employed by their contractors and contract suppliers of labor, such as leasing and temporary agencies.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more on the Joint-Employer Rule see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Employee Advocacy for Nonemployee, Unpaid Interns Is Not Protected by National Labor Relations Act

Unpaid interns are not “employees” as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and employee advocacy on their behalf is not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled. Amnesty International of the USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 112 (Nov. 12, 2019).

The NLRB also concluded the employer’s expression of frustration and disappointment with its employees’ actions on behalf of the interns was not an unlawful implied threat.

Background

Amnesty International is a nonprofit advocacy organization that typically hires 15 unpaid interns to volunteer each academic semester.

In February 2018, a group of interns, assisted by an employee, circulated a petition requesting the organization pay them for their volunteer work. Nearly all the organization’s employees signed the petition. At the same time, the organization’s executive team was considering a paid intern program with only three interns.

On April 2, 2018, unaware of the unpaid intern’s petition, the Executive Director of the organization shared the organization’s plans for a paid internship program during an employee meeting. The unpaid interns sent their petition to the Executive Director the next day.

On April 9, 2018, the Executive Director held separate meetings with the current interns and the employees who signed the petition to announce plans to implement the paid internships that fall. The employees reacted negatively and expressed concern about the reduced number of interns. The Executive Director stated that she was disappointed the employees did not take advantage of the organization’s open-door policy to discuss the matter with management before using a petition. The Executive Director also stated that she viewed the petition as adversarial and felt it threatened litigation.

On May 9, 2018, the employee who assisted the unpaid interns with their petition met privately with the Executive Director. The employee recorded the conversation. The Executive Director stated she was “very embarrassed” that her employees felt unable to approach her about the issue and “disappointed that she did not ‘have the kind of relationship with staff’ that she thought she had.” The Executive Director said that it would have been “really helpful” to know about the intern’s interest in paid internships in advance and that the employee could have told the interns to “give me a heads-up to let me know it’s coming.” The Executive Director indicated that a petition “sets off a more adversarial relationship” and is not effective when the demand could “be met without applying that pressure.” She further stated, “you could try talking to us before you do another petition.”

Administrative Law Judge Decision

After a trial, ALJ Michael A. Rosas held that the employees had engaged in protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA by joining the interns’ petition. He also determined the organization violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by: (1) instructing employees to make complaints orally before making them in writing; (2) threatening unspecified reprisals because of the employees’ protected concerted activity; (3) equating protected concerted activity with disloyalty; and (4) requesting employees to report to management other employees who are engaging in protected concerted activity. He dismissed the allegation that the Executive Director’s statements “impliedly threatened to increase employees’ workloads as a result of the petition.”

NLRB Decision

The NLRB reversed the ALJ’s conclusions and dismissed the complaint.

Holding that “[a]ctivity advocating only for nonemployees is not for ‘other mutual aid or protection’ within the meaning of Section 7,” the NLRB reasoned that the unpaid interns were not employees because they did not “receive or anticipate any economic compensation from [Amnesty International].”

The NLRB also held that the Executive Director’s statements did not coerce the employees. It concluded the Executive Director’s statements fell within Section 8(c) of the NLRA, which permits employers to express views, arguments, or opinions that are not accompanied by coercion (e.g., threats or promises of benefits). Considering the timing of the petition and the employees’ reaction, the NLRB determined that the Executive Director’s “opinions about how to handle petitions in the future to be, at most, suggestions, rather than commands or even direct requests.” Her statements “clearly expressed her frustration that, as a result of the lack of communication, management’s attempt to provide a positive response to the … petition had instead resulted in a backlash from employees.” However, the comments did not rise to the level of conveying anger, threaten reprisal, or accuse the employees of disloyalty, the NLRB ruled. Therefore, it concluded they did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

***

The NLRB has been signaling a hesitancy to impose obligations on employers outside the traditional employment context. It has proposed exempting paid undergraduate and graduate students from the NLRA, for example. Over the last several years, as employers are forced by the low employment rate to increase their use of nonemployees, unions have increased their efforts to expand the NLRA’s reach by organizing non-traditional workers, including temporary campaign workers and graduate students.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
Read more about NLRB rulings on the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Can You Spy on Your Employees’ Private Facebook Group?

For years, companies have encountered issues stemming from employee communications on social media platforms. When such communications take place in private groups not accessible to anyone except approved members, though, it can be difficult for an employer to know what actually is being said. But can a company try to get intel on what’s being communicated in such forums? A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case shows that, depending on the circumstances, such actions may violate labor law.

At issue in the case was a company that was facing unionizing efforts by its employees. Some employees of the company were members of a private Facebook group and posted comments in the group about potentially forming a union. Management became aware of this activity and repeatedly asked one of its employees who had access to the group to provide management with reports about the comments. The NLRB found this conduct to be unlawful and held: “It is well-settled that an employee commits unlawful surveillance if it acts in a way that is out of the ordinary in order to observe union activity.”

This case provides another reminder that specific rules come into play when employees are considering forming a union. Generally, companies cannot:

  • Threaten employees based on their union activity
  • Interrogate workers about their union activity, sentiments, etc.
  • Make promises to employees to induce them to forgo joining a union
  • Engage in surveillance (i.e., spying) on workers’ union organizing efforts

The employer’s “spying” in this instance ran afoul of these parameters, which can have costly consequences, such as overturned discipline and backpay awards.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more on employees’ social media use, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.