<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Labor Law Articles (Traditional)</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/7</link>
<description>Labor law articles discussing issues involving organized labor and organized workforces.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:02:00 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<item>
<title>Beware of Informal Settlements with the National Labor Relations Board</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11794</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11794</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Last month, the Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon issued revised instructions regarding informal settlement agreements with the NLRB.  In the Memorandum (GC-11-04), the Acting General Counsel expanded the use of default language in informal settlement agreements.    According to the revised procedure, whenever a Regional Office believes that there is a likelihood of the charged party/respondent being unable or unwilling to fulfill its settlement obligations, the Region is directed to include “default” language in the settlement agreement.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Littler Shareholder Stefan Marculewicz Testifies at Congressional Hearing Addressing NLRB Recess Appointments</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11775</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11775</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Littler Shareholder Stefan Marculewicz was among the panelists testifying on Tuesday before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about the legal and practical implications of the President’s decision to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) last month. On January 4, 2012, President Obama sat three new members to the NLRB, as well as a new director to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), while the Senate was still holding periodic pro forma sessions.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Recent Ruling that Class Action Waivers are Illegal Shows NLRB Remains Active</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11766</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11766</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>On January 3, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that a class action waiver in a mandatory employment arbitration agreement is illegal. D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012). This decision comes less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld such a waiver in a consumer arbitration agreement. AT&amp;T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). Further, in the days since the D.R. Horton decision was published, the Supreme Court again has upheld a consumer arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver. CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948 (Jan. 10, 2012).</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>University of Illinois Medical Center Nurses Ratify Contract with Staffing Language and Bonus Program</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11762</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11762</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Nurses at the University of Illinois Medical Center (the “Medical Center”) overwhelmingly voted to ratify a new three-year contract covering more than 1,000 nurses represented by the Illinois Nurses Association (the “Union”). The contract includes enhanced staffing language, a bonus program and wage increases of up to 17.85% over the three-year contract term.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>NLRB Offers Additional Guidance on Social Media Issues, Continues to Expand Employee Rights in Social Media Outlets and to Scrutinize Employer Communication Policies</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11757</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11757</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>On January 25th, National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued his second report summarizing cases that involve employee activity on social media outlets like Facebook or Twitter. General Counsel Memorandum OM 12-31 follows on the heels of the Acting General Counsel’s August 2011 report and generally summarizes 14 recent and “extremely fact-specific” social media cases reviewed by the Board’s Division of Advice, half of which involved questions about employer social media policies. The remaining cases involved employees who were discharged after they posted comments to Facebook. Unfortunately, the Memorandum does not include any identifying information about the cases, making it difficult to do more than take the summaries at face value. Although the cases reflect the current thinking of the Board’s national and regional level staff, employers should note that the Acting General Counsel selected these cases from the Board’s Division of Advice opinions on whether to issue a complaint, and not from formal Board decisions.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>NLRB Issues New Report on Facebook Firings</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11753</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11753</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel issued a new report last week discussing 14 recent social media cases.  We know the Board’s social media cases are a hot issue and that many of you are following them closely, so we decided to partner up with fellow blogger, Rick Ross of Employer Law Update, to fill you in.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>NLRB Issues New Report on Social Media</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11752</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11752</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board's Acting General Counsel issued a new report last week discussing 14 recent social media cases.  The Board's social media cases are a hot issue and many of you are following them closely, so I decided to partner up with fellow bloggers, Teresa Thompson and Norah Olson Bluvshtein of netWORKed, to fill you in.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Wash His Mouth Out With Soap!</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11750</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11750</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board under the Obama Administration has been in the news quite a bit lately. It has repeatedly been accused of ignoring past legal precedent in order to favor employees and unions over employers. While the agency has always been one of the most politicized in the federal government, it seems to have really outdone itself in a recent case involving a dealer. You be the judge.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>It's 2012 And The NLRB Is Off To A Fast – And Controversial – Start</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11737</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11737</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The 2011 calendar year was one of the more interesting years for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Board became a lightning rod for controversy and partisan politics due to its controversial decisions to utilize its rarely-used rulemaking authority to rewrite the rulebook on union elections and to require employers to post what many consider a pro-union National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) poster in its workplace.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Worker May Challenge Employer’s Neutrality Agreement with Union, Appeals Court Rules</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11728</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 11728</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>An employee may bring suit under the federal Labor Management Relations Act to enjoin enforcement of a neutrality agreement between his employer and a labor union, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled.  Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 944 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012).  The Court explained that labor organizing assistance can be a thing of value that, if demanded or given in payment in certain circumstances, could be a violation of the LMRA. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the suit and remanded the case.  In so deciding, the Eleventh Circuit broke ranks with several other federal courts that have ruled neutrality agreements are not “things of value.”  See, e.g., Adcock v. Freightliner, LLC, 550 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2008); Hotel Eps. &amp; Restaurant Eps. Union, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality, 390 F.3d 206, 218-19 (3d Cir. 2004); Patterson v. Heartland Industries Partners, 428 F. Supp. 2d 714 (D.C.N.D. Ohio 2006).  The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.</description>
</item>
</channel>

</rss>


