Advertisement

July 22, 2014

The NLRB Overrules Longstanding Precedent in Two New Opinions

On December 12, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) overruled a 50–year-old precedent when it decided that employers have a duty to continue to deduct union dues from employees’ paychecks even after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement that contained such a requirement. See WKYC-TV, Inc. 359 NLRB No. 30 (2012) overruling Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB No. 1500 (1962). A week later, the NLRB changed course on 30-year-old precedent when it determined that witness statements obtained during an employer investigation were no longer exempt from disclosure in pre-arbitration discovery. See American Baptist Homes of the West, 359 NLRB No. 46 (2012) overruling Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978). Each decision is discussed below.

1. WKYC-TV, Inc. 359 NLRB No. 30 (2012) overruling Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB No. 1500 (1962).

For the past 50 years, the NLRB had taken the position that a dues deduction provision in a collective bargaining agreement terminated upon expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. See Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB No. 1500 (1962). As such, if the employer and union were unable to reach an agreement by the time the collective bargaining agreement expired, the employer was free to stop deducting dues from employee paychecks and remitting them to the union. Thus, if a union wanted to continue to collect dues while it attempted to negotiate a new agreement with the employer, the union would have to collect the dues itself. This provided the employer with a legitimate bargaining tool.

In overturning Bethlehem Steel, the NLRB stated that “we find compelling statutory and policy reasons to abandon the Bethlehem Steel rule.” The NLRB pointed out that having the dues deduction provision survive the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement helped preserve the status quo, and nothing in federal labor law or policy indicates that dues deduction provisions should be treated less favorably than other terms and conditions of employment for purposes of the status quo rule. The NLRB also noted that Section 302(c)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, which exempts dues check-off from the Act’s prohibition against employer payments to unions, indicates that Congress intended a dues check-off arrangement would continue beyond the life of the collective bargaining agreement. Because the NLRB was overturning precedent which had been relied upon by employers for 50 years, the NLRB decided that the new rule would only be applied prospectively.

In his dissent, Member Brian Hayes noted that “for 50 years, the Board has held that . . . an employer’s obligation to check off union dues does not survive the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement. Today, the majority abandons that precedent and instead requires that dues checkoff, once instituted, continue ad infinitum until the parties either agree to discontinue it or reach a valid impasse. I am not persuaded that this disruption of settled law . . . is adequately justified by the majority.”

Based upon the WKYC-TV, Inc. decision, employers must now continue to deduct union dues from employees’ paychecks and remit them to the union even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, while they continue to negotiate a new agreement with the union.

2. American Baptist Homes of the West, 359 NLRB No. 46 (2012) overruling Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978).

For more than 30 years, the NLRB held that witness statements obtained by an employer during an investigation were exempt from disclosure in pre-arbitration discovery. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978). The rationale behind the rule was to encourage witnesses to make statements without the fear of reprisal or intimidation. “After careful consideration,” however, the NLRB recently concluded that the reasoning in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. was “flawed.” See American Baptist Homes of the West, 359 NLRB No. 46 (2012).

In deciding that witness statements should be turned over in pre-arbitration discovery, the NLRB indicated that under the rules, there is a general obligation to furnish the union with relevant information and the NLRB found that witness statements were not fundamentally different from other types of information deemed discoverable through information requests. The NLRB ultimately concluded that witness statements are discoverable unless the employer establishes that the statements are confidential. As it did with the decision in WKYC TV, Inc., the NLRB decided that the new rule would only be applied prospectively.

In his dissent, Member Hayes noted that abandoning the previous rule would only result in additional litigation. Member Hayes also pointed out that the new rule is in conflict with the EEOC Guidance regarding workplace investigations. In the Guidance, the EEOC is clear that confidentiality is a key component of an effective workplace investigation.

Given the NLRB’s decision in American Baptist Homes of the West, it is advisable for employers to seek counsel in conducting investigations and preparing statements. Employers should not make any promises or assurances to witnesses regarding confidentiality. Witnesses should be reminded, however, that they cannot be retaliated against for cooperating with an investigation.

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jason Hilliard is a member of the Labor and Employment Department. Jason’s practice focuses on representing employers in all aspects related to the workplace. He has experience litigating and advising clients in matters arising under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and other state and federal employment statutes and regulations. Beyond employment matters, Jason handles general business and criminal litigation as well. He also has extensive trial experience and has tried over 100 cases to verdict. Prior to joining the firm, Jason served as...

513-977-8569

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.