|
|
|
  Employer's Discriminatory and Overbroad Restrictions on Union Activity Violate NLRA, Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 09, 2010 Showing deference to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal appeals court in Chicago has upheld the Board’s determination that a company violated the National Labor Relations Act by restricting union organizing activity at the workplace. Loparex LLC v. NLRB, Nos. 09-2187, 09-2289 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2009). The Court also agreed that the company’s shift leaders were not statutory supervisors under the NLRA. Accordingly, the Court granted the Board’s order for the company to cease its unfair labor practices and to take affirmative steps to remedy its past violations. The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Report Link Union's "Orchestrated" Refusal To Work Overtime Found Unlawful.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - November 05, 2009 A federal appeals court recently ruled that United Healthcare Workers – West, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), violated federal law by telling housekeepers and linen aides at a San Francisco hospital to refuse to perform overtime work without giving the hospital ten-days prior notice. Report Link "You've Got Mail" - Court Reverses NLRB Decision.Ogletree Deakins - August 13, 2009 A federal appellate court recently held that an employer violated federal labor law by disciplining an employee for sending union-related emails to her co-workers. The court disagreed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), finding that "substantial evidence does not support the Board's determination that [the employee] was disciplined for a reason other than that she sent a union-related email." Report Link Expansive Right of Employers to Manage Use of Computer Systems Survive Court Review of NLRB Order.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 03, 2009 The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., has left undisturbed a National Labor Relations Board ruling that an employer can restrict all personal use of its business communication systems. In Guard Publishing Company d/b/a The Register-Guard v. NLRB, Nos. 07-1528, 08-1006, and 08-1013 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 7, 2009), the Court also did not disturb the agency’s holding that an employer can permit certain types of solicitation through the systems, while prohibiting organizational or similar solicitations, although it did reverse in part the NLRB’s decision upholding the discipline of an employee for her allegedly improper use of the communication systems. Report Link Broad Confidentiality Provisions in Handbooks Can Be Unlawful.Vedder Price - March 17, 2009 On March 13, 2009, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affi rmed an NLRB
decision holding that an
employer violated the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
when it discharged an
employee for violating a policy
requiring employees to keep
the terms of their compensation
confi dentlal. Report Link NLRB Memo Addresses Workers' Right To Engage In Political Advocacy.Ogletree Deakins - October 10, 2008 On July 22, 2008, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Office of the General Counsel issued a guidance memorandum (GC 08-10) to its Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge and Resident Officers addressing unfair labor practice (ULP) charges involving political advocacy. Report Link 'Tis the (Political) Season: NLRB Clarifies Its Rules on Politics at Work.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - September 05, 2008 Basic workplace etiquette dictates that religion, sex, and politics are taboo conversation topics. But in this contentious election season, the American workplace is politically charged, with many employees eager to speak out on issues that affect their employment. Of course, employee expressions of political sentiment are not limited to presidential election years. Pending legislation can stimulate arguments, and as many employers saw in May, 2006, proposed immigration reforms sparked nationwide protests, disrupting some employers' workplaces. Report Link Can a Bumper Sticker Get You Bumped? NLRB's General Counsel Issues Guidelines on Political Advocacy.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 14, 2008 Employers across the country were suddenly forced to address the issue of political advocacy in the workplace when rallies were held on May 1 of last year to protest U.S. immigration policies. Workers left their jobs to take part, and both employers and the National Labor Relations Board were uncertain about how to respond. Were these work stoppages protected by the National Labor Relations Act, and, if so, to what extent? There were no definitive answers. Report Link Confidentiality Provision May Violate Federal Labor Law.Ogletree Deakins - August 05, 2008 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that a temporary employment agency violated federal labor law by including a confidentiality provision in the employment contract between the agency and a temporary worker, and by terminating the worker for violating that provision. The NLRB held that the provision was unlawful because employees reasonably could construe it as restricting discussions with union representatives. This decision is important because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits work rules that restrict discussion of wages or working conditions among employees or with a union, or rules which might "reasonably be construed" to restrict such discussions. Northeastern Land Services, Ltd. d/b/a The NLS Group and Jamison John Dupuy, 352 NLRB No. 89 (June 27, 2008).
Report Link Confidentiality Provision In Employment Agreement May Violate Federal Labor Law.Ogletree Deakins - July 15, 2008 The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits work rules that restrict discussion of wages or working conditions among employees or with a union, or rules which might “reasonably be construed” to restrict such discussions. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board held that a temp agency violated the NLRA by including a confidentiality provision in the employment contract between the temp agency and a temporary worker, and by terminating the worker for his violation of that provision. The Board held that the provision was unlawful because employees reasonably could construe it as restricting discussions with union representatives. In re: Northeastern Land Services, Ltd. and John Dupuy, NLRB Case No. 1-CA-39447, June 27, 2008. Report Link NLRB Again Finds Confidentiality Policies Unlawful.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 09, 2008 Staffing companies typically seek to limit their employees from addressing pay and benefit issues to the client company. Among other reasons, staffing companies may feel that clients do not want to hear compensation complaints from temporary workers, nor do clients want such workers sharing salary information with the client's regular employees. Report Link Nursing Director's Internal "Whistleblower" Complaints Not Protected Activity.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 08, 2008 The Eighth Circuit has held that the Minnesota whistleblower statute does not protect a nursing director who was reassigned to a different position after she complained internally about legal violations at her health care company. Skare v. Extendicare Health Serv. Inc., 515 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008). Filing such internal complaints was not a statutorily protected activity. Report Link Preventing Union Activities Via Company Email Gets Easier.Shaw Valenza LLP - January 14, 2008 Email communication has become common at the workplace during the last 10 years or so. It is a fast, cheap, discrete, and efficient way of distributing information about work-related matters. But these same characteristics make email an ideal method for employees to communicate among themselves regarding non-work matters, including union organizing activities. Report Link Employers May Limit E-mail Use for Union Solicitation.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - January 10, 2008 In a long-awaited decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), held that employers have the right to implement and enforce a policy prohibiting employees from using the company’s e-mail system for “non-job-related solicitations.” In The Guard Publishing Company, 351 NLRB No. 70 (12/16/07), the Board held that employees do not have a statutory right to use the employer’s e-mail system to solicit on behalf of unions. Report Link NLRB Issues Important Ruling Affecting Employer Email Policies.Phelps Dunbar LLP - January 09, 2008 On December 16th, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its long-awaited opinion in The Register-Guard and Eugene Newspaper Guild. The opinion gives employers greater freedom to restrict the use of company equipment-in particular, email systems-for non-work related activities, including union solicitation. Report Link You've Got Mail - NLRB Sends Employers a Holiday Gift.Ogletree Deakins - January 08, 2008 "(E)mployees have no statutory right to use...(an employer's) e-mail system for Section 7 purposes." So said the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a long-awaited decision finding that an employer has the right to restrict use of its e-mail system based on its property interest in the computer equipment. Specifically, the NLRB ruled that an employer's policy prohibiting the use of its system for "non-job-related solicitations" did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Report Link NLRB Issues Decision on E-mail Solicitation.Vedder Price - January 04, 2008 The National Labor Relations Board has issued a much-anticipated decision giving employers substantial control over their e-mail systems. In The Register Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (Dec. 16, 2007), the Board held that employees do not have broad rights to use such systems to organize or advocate union causes. Report Link Appeals Court Holds Concerted Action to Protest Supervisor Firing Not Protected by NLRA.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 03, 2008 Joining other circuits that have reviewed the issue, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that an employee walkout to protest the firing of a management employee is almost always unreasonable and not protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Employees who engage in such activity may be terminated and replaced without recourse under the Act. Report Link NLRB Rules That Employers May Implement a Corporate E-Mail Policy That Has the Effect of Barring Union-Related Communications.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 02, 2008 In a highly anticipated decision, a sharply divided National Labor Relations Board ruled by a vote of 3-2 that employers may prohibit employee use of a company's e-mail system for nonwork solicitations, including union-related solicitations. Report Link Employees Have No Statutory Right to Use Employer E-Mail Systems for Union Organizing Purposes.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 31, 2007 Business E-Mail Systems Belong to the Employer; Private Use May Be Restricted; NLRB Also Expands Employer Right to Permit Solicitations on Company Premises Without Risking Unlawful Conduct by Barring Union Solicitations; In a case that has been pending for seven years, the National Labor Relations Board has resolved the issue whether an employer could legally prohibit employees from using company e-mail systems for personal and other non-job-related reasons, including union solicitations.
Report Link Board Decision Finds Employer’s E-Mail Policy Valid But Discriminatory Enforcement Issues Remain Unclear.Ford & Harrison LLP - December 28, 2007 In a decision that warrants careful consideration by employers, a three/two majority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining an e-mail policy that prohibited employees from using its e-mail system to send “non-job-related solicitations.” See Guard Publishing Co., 351 NLRB No. 70 (Dec. 16, 2007, released Dec. 21, 2007). Report Link Court Enjoins Employer From Enforcing Confidentiality Provision.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 28, 2007 Many schools have provisions in their employee handbooks or employment contracts that make clear that an employee's salary and other compensation elements are to be kept confidential. In many cases, the school warns that the employee’s breach of that confidentiality will lead to discipline, up to and including termination of employment. Report Link Common Workplace Rules Held to Discourage "Protected Activity" (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - April 03, 2007 Court finds provision barring fraternization among workers violated federal law. Report Link Rare Oral Argument on Employee E-Mail Usage May Signal Clarification of NLRB Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 02, 2007 The NLRB is holding oral argument on whether emloyers can prohibit email use for personal reasons without violating employee's section 7 rights. Report Link Security Company Must Allow Fraternization, Says DC Circuit.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - March 30, 2007 Most employers think it's legal to prohibit employee fraternization, but they must take into account the NLRA's prohibition on restricting certain protected concerted activities. Report Link Recent Decision Reiterates Limitations on Confidentiality Policies Imposed by NLRA.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 23, 2007 Confidentiality policies run the risk of violating the NLRA's protected concerted activity provision. Report Link Federal Court Finds Confidentiality Rule Violates NLRA.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 22, 2007 Because it could be construed to prohibit employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, even though it does not expressly prohibit employees from doing so. Report Link The Dangers of Overbroad Work Rules: Union-Free and Unionized Employers Beware.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 07, 2007 Most employers across the United States have a compilation of work rules – some more detailed than others - to guide their employees' workplace conduct. However well-intentioned and necessary to establish workplace norms, without careful drafting and review, work rules can be framed in ways that can cause them to be overbroad and lead to legal exposure under the National Labor Relations Act, the federal law that gives employees the right to engage in concerted activity (e.g., join a union). Report Link DC Circuit Determines That Fraternization Policy Violates Federal Labor Law.Ford & Harrison LLP - February 23, 2007 The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently overruled the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), and determined that an employer maintained an unlawful fraternization policy that violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). See Guardsmark LLC v. NLRB (Feb. 2, 2007). The policy, which was maintained in the employer’s handbook, provided that employees were not to “fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client’s employees or with co-employees.” Report Link NLRA Limits on Anti-Fraternization Policies Renew Concerns for Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 12, 2007 Many employers include anti-fraternization policies in employee handbooks or policy manuals to prevent personal relationships among employees that have turned corrosive from damaging the work environment and to avoid conflicts of interests with customers and business partners outside the workplace. The National Labor Relations Act, however, imposes significant restrictions on such policies in unionized and non-union companies alike. Where policies are found to interfere with employees' protected rights to engage in union and other concerted activity, including the right to discuss terms and conditions of employment for the employees' mutual benefit, they may be deemed unlawful. A recent federal appeals court decision in Washington, D.C., illustrates the armchair quarterbacking that awaits an employer whose policy is challenged before the National Labor Relations Board. Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2263 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2007). Report Link NLRB Seeks Views on Employers' Right to Ban Personal Use of Business E-Mail.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 02, 2007 For the past decade, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the agency's chief prosecutor, has taken the position in a number of cases that an employer may not prohibit employees from using the employer's e-mail systems for personal solicitations, including union solicitations. Although the Board has not weighed in on the issue, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge's decision that a "business use only" e-mail policy is not unlawful on its face, now on appeal before the Board, is likely to change that. The Board has invited interested parties to submit briefs by February 9, 2007, and has scheduled a rarely allowed oral argument for March 27, 2007, prior to rendering a decision. Report Link NLRB Will Consider Whether Employees' Use of Employer's E-Mail is Protected Concerted Activity Under NLRA.Ford & Harrison LLP - January 22, 2007 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has announced that it will hold oral argument on March 27, 2007, on the issue of whether employees' use of their employer's e-mail system is protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Report Link "Disloyal" comments not held protected by federal labor law (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - September 12, 2006 Court overturns verdict to reinstate employee. Report Link NLRB Allows Hospitals to Ban Buttons Suggesting Unsafe Staffing (pdf).Vedder Price - August 04, 2006 In Sacred Heart Medical Center, 347 NLRB No. 48
(June 30, 2006), the National Labor Relations Board
upholds the right of a hospital to restrict nurses from
wearing buttons that suggest that patient safety is
being compromised. Report Link The NLRB's Developing Rules Regarding E-mail Policies.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - April 20, 2006 Employers sometimes forget that the National Labor Relations Act applies to employer e-mail policies affecting employee union activity or non-union activity that promotes employee mutual benefit. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) has been slow to adapt to workplace changes and has struggled to develop consistent rules regulating e-mail policies. Report Link Facility Rule Banning Profane or Abusive Language Does Not Violate Employee Rights, Says Labor Board.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 24, 2005 An employee conduct rule that prohibited abusive or profane language anywhere on facility premises does not on its own violate employee rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
|
ArticlesFound: 36 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsEmployment Law Breakfast Briefings`Kenner
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds