Total Articles: 10
Fisher Phillips • June 20, 2018
When considering the place of unions in the gig economy, many jump to the conclusion that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply because gig workers are usually independent contractors. While it is true that the NLRA does not apply to independent contractors, businesses should not discount the ability of gig workers to find ways to bargain for certain working conditions and get similar protections.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 19, 2018
In The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the Board approved the maintenance of rules promoting “harmonious interactions and relationships,” and requiring civility in the workplace, as categorically lawful. “To the extent the Board in past cases has held that it violates the Act to maintain rules requiring employees to foster ‘harmonious interactions and relationships’ or to maintain basic standards of civility in the workplace, those cases are hereby overruled.”
Fisher Phillips • June 17, 2018
The National Labor Relations Board General Counsel, Peter Robb, recently outlined the agency’s plan of action for evaluating workplace rules in his latest memorandum to regional offices—and the message is welcome news for employers. The 20-page memo is a reaction to the Board’s December 2017 decision in Boeing Co. that upended the controversial Lutheran Heritage standard and helped start to restore balance to workplace rules. This memo takes the next step in that process.
Franczek Radelet P.C • June 13, 2018
Last week, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel issued a memorandum to NLRB regional offices interpreting the Board’s recent Boeing decision. In Boeing, the Board overturned that part of its Lutheran Heritage test pursuant to which the Board invalidated facially-neutral work rules if they could be interpreted to limit an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity. In Boeing, the Board, by way of a newly-announced balancing test, shifted the focus to prohibiting only those rules that, when reasonably interpreted, would interfere with protected concerted activity. This new balancing test weighs the impact of a facially-neutral rule on employee rights versus employer interests in, for example, safety, productivity, or discipline. The Board further explained in Boeing that, over time, the application of its new test would yield three categories of rules, the goal of which is to provide employers, employees, and unions with guidance regarding their rights and and responsibilities under federal labor law. The General Counsel’s memorandum provides the following additional guidance concerning the Boeing categories:
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 13, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate federal law. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307 (May 21, 2018). The Supreme Court’s decision resolves the circuit split on whether class or collective action waivers contained in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. They do not, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority of the Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, describing the majority holding as “egregiously wrong.”
Nexsen Pruet • June 13, 2018
Traditionally, employers rely on personnel policies and employee handbooks to communicate workplace expectations and benefits to employees. Earlier this decade, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) began aggressively scrutinizing those policies and concluding that many “could”—as opposed to would or did—interfere with employee-protections arising from the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). At the time, many well-intentioned policies fell short of the NLRB's broad, subjective analysis, triggering policy revisions or deletions. Earlier this month, however, the NLRB General Counsel issued a new guidance document, Memorandum GC 18-04, confirming that the NLRB has switched from the earlier antagonistic approach to a more balanced analysis of standard personnel policies. The NLRB’s new approach will help employers communicate important workplace policies and reduce the threat of subjective unfair labor practice charges.
FordHarrison LLP • June 12, 2018
Executive Summary: In a 20-page memorandum dated June 6, 2018, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb issued guidance to the Regions on handbook rules in light of the Board’s decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 11, 2018
On June 6, 2018, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued a lengthy 20-page Memorandum (GC 18-04) providing detailed guidance regarding enforcement of “Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.”
Fisher Phillips • June 11, 2018
In a rare procedural move that caught many by surprise, the National Labor Relations Board announced on Wednesday that it will soon start the rulemaking process to clarify the current joint employment standard. Perhaps frustrated by uncertainty resulting from the recent reversal of a Board decision on the topic and the seemingly stalled litigation sitting at the D.C. Circuit, Chairman John Ring said that he hopes NLRB rulemaking would bring resolution to this matter “as soon as possible.”
Guidance from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) gives employers more latitude in drafting workplace rules, including rules regarding workplace civility. A memo from NLRB General Counsel Peter Rob directs regional directors to shift the presumption about whether a work rule violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in favor of employers. The memo was issued to provide guidance on the standards to use in reviewing work rules following the NLRB's Boeing decision in December 2017.