Total Articles: 5
FordHarrison LLP • October 27, 2016
Executive Summary: In 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued several significant decisions with legal and practical implications for employers acquiring unionized operations. Employers acquiring unionized operations must take extra precautions if they wish to set initial terms and conditions of employment for newly acquired/hired employees.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • September 12, 2016
In Paragon Systems, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 75 (2016), the National Labor Relations Board declined the General Counsel’s request to overturn its 42-year-old decision in Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974), enfd. per curiam 529 F.2d 516 (4th Cir. 1975).
Ogletree Deakins • October 23, 2015
New York City’s Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) is one of numerous local worker retention laws, which apply to various industries in jurisdictions across the country, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Providence, Rhode Island, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia. These laws generally require new employers to retain a predecessor’s employees for a period of time. The DBSWPA applies to cleaning service employees in the New York City real estate industry. The recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision in GVS Properties, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 194 (Aug. 27, 2015) affects employers’ ability to set initial terms and conditions of employment, signals the NLRB’s desire to impose heightened obligations upon purchasers of a business, casts doubt on the constitutionality of worker retention laws, and is yet another bewildering decision by the NLRB.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 13, 2015
In a previous post, we reported on Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), a landmark National Labor Relations Board decision that established a new “test” for the NLRB to apply when determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 07, 2015
On August 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Home Care Rule and reversed the lower court’s decisions vacating the new rule. On October 6, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the home care industry coalition's application to stay the effective date of the new rule pending its filing of a petition for certiorari. This means that the appeals court’s “mandate” will become effective on October 13.