The National Labor Relations Board, by a vote of 2-1, recently reversed an administrative law judge (ALJ) in finding that a hospital did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the union. District Hospital Partners, L.P., 370
Articles Discussing Collective Bargaining.
More than five years and a pandemic later, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has clarified a successor employer’s union bargaining obligations regarding layoffs under the National Labor Relations Act. Tramont Manufacturing, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 136 (July 27, 2020).
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently overturned a 2016 decision holding that an employer violates Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain to a newly elected union prior to disciplining unit members.
On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford, (Care One) issued a decision overturning the controversial Total Security Management decision. In Care One, the NLRB held that […]
On June 23, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board issued its decision in 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020), holding that employers have no duty to bargain over serious employee discipline imposed before the negotiation of a collective
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled an employer does not have a duty to provide a union with relevant information that contains confidential material if the union has refused the employer’s offer to bargain over ways to protect its legitimate confidentiality interests. Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC, 369 NLRB
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it unilaterally changed retirees’ medical benefits without first negotiating with the unions that represented its employees. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., 368 NLRB No. 48 (Sept. 4, 2019).
While I-9 compliance is important, companies cannot forget about other labor and employment laws. In May 2018, a meatpacking company in Illinois was caught between ICE and the National Labor Relations Board.
An employer lawfully unilaterally implemented a stricter tardiness and absentee policy even though a union had recently won an election to represent its workers, according to a memorandum released by the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel’s Division of Advice. Cott Beverages, Inc., No. 16-CA-206068 (Div. of Advice, Apr. 26, 2018, released May 15, 2018).
In the first test of the National Labor Relations Board’s 2011 “successor bar” rule, the federal appeals court in Boston has upheld the NLRB’s decision that the union is protected from decertification after a change of ownership at the unionized company for at least six months. National Labor Relations Board v. Lily Transp. Corp., No. 15-2398 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2017).
Prior to entering into a first contract, an employer has a statutory obligation to bargain with the union that represents its employees before imposing discretionary “serious discipline” (such as suspension, demotion, or discharge) on any of those employees, the National Labor Relations Board again has held. Total Security Management Illinois 1, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 106 (Aug. 26, 2016).
A company’s requirement that new employees represented by a union sign a non-compete and confidentiality agreement (NCCA) as a condition of employment violated the National Labor Relations Act because the NCCA is a mandatory subject of bargaining that could not be unilaterally implemented, the NLRB has held. Minteq International, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 63 (July 29, 2016). However, contrary to its recent inclinations, the Board also found that an individual provisions of the NCCA – concerning confidential information – was lawful.
An Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that a meat processing company had violated provisions of the National Labor Relations Act when it utilized a temporary employment agency to fill vacant bargaining unit positions, and enrolled in the E-Verify program without first adequately notifying or bargaining with the local union. The Ruprecht Co., Nos. 13-CA-155048, 13-CA-155049, 13-CA-156198 and 13-CA-158317, JD(NY)-14-16 (May 13, 2016).
Enforcing a National Labor Relations Board order, the federal appeals court in Chicago has held an employer unlawfully denied a union safety specialist access to its facility to examine the site of a fatal accident (the cause of which had not been determined) involving a bargaining unit employee. Caterpillar Inc. v. NLRB, No. 14-3528 (7th Cir. Oct. 2, 2015).
The D.C. Circuit recently enforced the National Labor Relations Board’s January 3, 2012 order holding that an automotive dealership had violated Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain with the union about the effects of the relocation of a group of mechanics. Dodge of Naperville, Inc. and Burke Automotive Group, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 183 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015). The ruling highlights the risks employers face by failing to engage in effects bargaining where required and by unlawfully withdrawing recognition from a union even if such withdrawal is simply “premature.”