join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

House Hearing Addresses NLRB's New Joint Employer Standard

Members of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on a bill that would undo the new joint employer standard the National Labor Relations Board recently established. As previously discussed, the Protecting Local Business Opportunity Act (H.R. 3459, S. 2015) would amend the National Labor Relations Act in light of the Board's contentious decision in Browning-Ferris Industries. In this decision, the Board determined that if an entity affects the means and manner—either directly or indirectly—of the work terms and conditions of another entity's employees, it will be considered a joint employer with the other entity, even if that power was unexercised.

NLRB Issues Guidelines on Use of Electronic Signatures in Representation Cases

As we reported earlier, on December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) adopted a Final Rule that modified its processing of representation cases. See, 79 Fed. Reg. at 74308. As part of this rule, the NLRB determined that its regulations permitted the use of electronic signatures to support a showing of interest in representation proceedings.

And The Beat Goes On... The NLRB's Attack on Confidentiality Continues

Many employers believe they have the absolute right to prohibit their workers from disclosing “confidential” information to coworkers and third parties. They are dead wrong. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has consistently restricted employer rights in this area, and some recent decisions and guidelines from the current Board have accelerated the erosion of these employer rights.

Drug and Alcohol Testing May Contribute to Joint Employer Finding By NLRB

We have written previously about the National Labor Relation Board’s 3-2 decision in Browning-Ferris of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (August 27, 2015), increasing the likelihood the Board may find two employers to be “joint employers,” and thereby share many collective bargaining responsibilities as well as liability for each other’s violations of the National Labor Relations Act. See “Labor Board Sets New Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status” (August 25, 2015).

8th Circuit denies enforcement of NLRB decision regarding throat-slitting gesture.

Over the past year, employers have bemoaned the fact that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided: that two nursing home employees should be reinstated despite performance deficiencies that included patient safety issues; that an employee’s online and obscenity-laced rant was “protected activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); and that an employee’s discussion of a help-wanted ad with a co-worker was “concerted activity” under the NLRA.

Employer Ambushed by Labor Board’s New Election Rule

Much has been written about the National Labor Relations Board’s new “ambush” election rules. The rules are a one-two punch to employers: first, by substantially shortening the pre-election period; and, second, by imposing onerous information disclosure obligations. (For more on the rules, see our article, Preparing for Labor Board’s Quickie Election Rule.)

The Culling Fields: Date Range and Custodian Culling

This is part Six of the continuing series on two-filter document culling. This is very important to successful, economical document review. Please read parts one, two, three, four and five before this one.

Bill Would Greatly Expand Penalties, Remedies for Unfair Labor Practices

Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation on September 16, 2015 that would greatly expand the remedial scope of the National Labor Relations Act. Crafted with input from labor leaders, the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act would, among other things, provide employees with a private right to sue their employers in federal court for unfair labor practices, allow corporate officers to be held personally liable for NLRA violations, enhance the National Labor Relations Board's authority to seek redress for complainants, and authorize the award of civil fines against employers. While the measure has virtually no chance of being enacted this term, it serves as a "message" bill that will likely be referenced in the lead-up to the 2016 elections.

NLRB's New Joint Employer Standard Faces First Legislative Challenge

Two days after returning from a scheduled congressional recess, senior Republican lawmakers introduced the first legislative challenge to the NLRB’s new joint employer standard, which was handed down last month in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015).

NLRB's Landmark Joint Employer Ruling Has Big Implications (Podcast)

The National Labor Relations Board's expansive definition of "joint employer" in its Browning-Ferris decision could spark expanded unionization efforts. Longtime Boston labor law attorney Howard Bloom explains why and discusses other ramifications.