http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/7 Labor law articles discussing issues involving organized labor and organized workforces. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:07:45 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7119 Article: 7119 Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7114 Article: 7114 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) At the June quadrennial convention of the Service Employees International Union in Puerto Rico, the union announced that it was planning a “global day of action,” called “Take Back the Economy,” on July 17, 2008. The union, which claims two million members, denies that the action simply is to protest the private equity industry, but that seems to be exactly the case. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7101 Article: 7101 Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7100 Article: 7100 Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Senator Barack Obama has given new impetus to a bill that would change the nation's labor law to a degree unknown since 1947. Although no action has been taken on the Employee Free Choice Act ("EFCA") since its passage by the United States House of Representatives in March of last year, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has revitalized interest in the labor-backed measure by placing it high on his political agenda and announcing support for it recently at a major union convention. Key components of the legislation, changes the bill would make to current law if enacted, and possible issues the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") and the courts would face have been described on this site previously and are summarized here for our readers' convenience. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7087 Article: 7087 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a California law that prohibits employers who receive state funds from using those funds to "assist, promote, or deter union organizing" is pre-empted by federal labor law. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7065 Article: 7065 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On June 19, 2008, in a widely anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Stevens that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) "unequivocally pre-empted" California's "union neutrality" law, which prohibited employers who accept state funds from using those funds to deter union organizing. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 (June 19, 2008). This decision is welcome news for many employers who do business in California and were faced with the burdensome accounting task of separating state-provided funds from other funds in order to counter union organizing attempts. The decision also provides assurance to employers doing business in other states that have contemplated adopting a law similar to California's. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7059 Article: 7059 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted a California law that required employers who received state funds to remain neutral in regard to union representation. In Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06-939 (June 19, 2008), the court held that an employer's right to engage in a debate over issues concerning union representation is a fundamental policy embodied in this country's national labor relations laws and that a state cannot interfere with it. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7038 Article: 7038 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a California law that prohibits employers who receive state funds from using those funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing” is pre-empted by federal labor law. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7033 Article: 7033 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Agreeing with the position taken by Jackson Lewis before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that key provisions of California’s so-called labor relations neutrality statute run afoul of federal labor law and are unenforceable. The ruling emphasizes that robust debate on issues concerning union representation is a fundamental policy embodied in our national labor law and that a state statute cannot interfere with it. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7026 Article: 7026 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a substantial victory for those employers who choose to take efforts to fend off union campaigns at their workplaces. In a 7 to 2 decision, the Court found that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts a California law that prohibits certain employers from using State funds to assist or deter unionization efforts by their employees. A contrary decision could have opened the door for other states to utilize their spending and regulatory power to restrict employer free-speech rights during union organizing campaigns.