Total Articles: 10
Employer Cannot Have Its Cake and Eat It Too in Terminating Illegal Striking Employees
A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board demonstrates that in law, as in life, sometimes you cannot change your mind without consequences. In Douglas Autotech Corp., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 111 (Nov. 18, 2011), the Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision that, even though employees participated in an illegal strike, their employer illegally fired them.
Legal Alert: NLRB Assesses Litigation Expenses Against Employer in Unfair Labor Practice Case
Executive Summary: Among a series of cases decided by the NLRB before Member Becker's recess appointment ended, the pro-labor Board held that an employer who engages in bad faith conduct will be liable for the litigation expenses of both the Board's General Counsel and the affected union.
The Case of the Bad Hair Day
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a long-term care facility in North Carolina violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it terminated an employee who violated its dress code policy by wearing a hat to work.
“Bad Haircut” and Unequal Policy Enforcement Lead to Trouble for Employer
In NLRB v. White Oak Manor, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals enforced a decision by the National Labor Relations Board finding that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged an employee allegedly for photographing employees at work without permission. The Court agreed with the Board’s findings that the employee was actually discharged because of protected concerted activity and that the employer had not consistently enforced its photography and dress code policies.
Recent NLRB Decision Reinforces that Most “Bannering” Does Not Violate the NLRA
Over the past 12 months, the National Labor Relations Board has considered whether certain union activities directed at a “secondary employer”—an employer doing business with the “primary employer” with which the union has a dispute—violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA generally prohibits “secondary activities” that are threatening, coercive, or restraining and are aimed at forcing a secondary employer to stop doing business with another person or company. Since September 2010, the Board has decided in several cases that “bannering,” a union practice of displaying a large banner outside of a secondary employer’s location, does not violate this secondary activity prohibition in the NLRA. This past spring, the Board extended its reasoning to cover other types of bannering as well, such as the display of large inflatable rats or similar balloons. This month, a majority of the Board again reaffirmed the broad, although not unlimited, protection for bannering under the NLRA and First Amendment.
Lessons from the NLRB's Boeing Complaint
On April 11, 2011, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing seeking to force Boeing to move its second line of Dreamliner production from South Carolina to Washington State and the jurisdiction of the International Association of Machinists. The complaint has drawn national attention as Republican Senators and Congressmen have condemned Solomon and the NLRB for filing the complaint, and the NLRB and Democrats have responded. The debate in Washington has focused on the impact of the complaint and the politics associated with the filing of the complaint.
Supervisor has a viable claim under the NLRA when terminated or disciplined for refusing to commit unfair labor practices.
Although supervisors generally are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employees from unfair labor practices, that Act is deemed to have been violated if a supervisors discharge results from his refusal to commit an unfair labor practice. Recently, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a supervisors federal court complaint on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, holding that because the individual claimed to have been fired for refusing to take action against pro-union employees, the issue could only be properly reviewed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
NLRB says cleaning company's rules are spotless (pdf).
Employers, even those that are union-free, must comply with the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA). Under the Act, you cant discriminate against union members or restrict
employees right to organize. Union members and organizers often challenge employers
nonsolicitation and no-access policies as being in violation of those rules under the Act.
NLRB Finds Employee Confidentiality Requirement Too Broad (pdf).
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act
prohibits an employer from interfering with an employees
right (guaranteed by section 7 of the Act) to engage in
union activity. In a recent NLRB decision, the Board
found that a confidentiality provision in an employee
handbook prohibiting the release of any information
concerning . . . its partners (i.e., employees) was overly
broad and violated section 8(a)(1). Cintas Corp. and
Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Employees,
344 NLRB No. 118 (June 30, 2005).
Handbook Provision On Union Threats Unlawful (pdf).
A federal appellate court recently
held that an employee handbook provision
encouraging workers to report any
harassment by fellow employees to
sign union authorization cards violates
federal labor law. According to the
court, the companys employees were
not able to discern any limiting principles
from the circumstances under
which the policy was issued. This ruling
serves as a reminder that harassment
policies that deal with protected union
activity must be carefully drafted.
