May 19, 2022

Volume XII, Number 139

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 17, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 16, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Build Back Better Act Update: Committee Releases Labor Provisions for Inclusion in Senate Vote

The Build Back Better Act passed the House on November 19, 2021. It contains controversial provisions on many subjects, including new employer penalties under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On December 11th, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions released its version of the provisions of the Build Back Better bill on subjects within its jurisdiction, including amendments to the NLRA. The panel retained the new, severe employer penalties for unfair labor practices (ULPs), but the bill does not include other far-reaching changes which were in the original House version.

The bill contains unprecedented penalties for employer ULPs. Today, ULPs by either unions or employers are remedied by requiring backpay and reinstatement to prior employment and employment terms. The bill would add new “civil penalties” (fines). These fines would apply only to employer violations, however, not those committed by unions.

Under the bill, any ULP violation by an employer would additionally be subject to a penalty “not to exceed” $50,000 for each violation. However, for employers found to have committed certain violations, and any that results in the discharge or “serious economic harm” to an employee, the penalty can be doubled to $100,000 if the employer had been found to have committed a similar violation within five years.

In addition, the bill would add civil fine personal liability for any company officer or director who “directed or committed the violation,” established the policy that led to the violation, or had actual or constructive knowledge of the events and the authority to prevent it but did not act to prevent it. Personal liability has never been part of the NLRA.

On the other hand, the Committee draft no longer contains certain other new employer violations that were in the original House draft. These were provisions would have applied the same civil penalties to employer actions that have long been held to be lawful, including:

  1. Permanent replacement of economic strikers

  2. Employer lockouts

  3. Mistakenly advising employees that they are “supervisors” or “independent contractors” and, thus, not covered by the NLRA

  4. Mandating employee attendance at employer group campaign meetings

  5. Entering or requiring employees to enter agreements not to engage in collective actions (such as class action litigation)

The Committee language will become part of the version of the bill that will ultimately be voted on by the Senate. The bill is framed as a budget “reconciliation” bill – allowing it to avoid a Senate filibuster requiring passage by a supermajority, which is unlikely. As a reconciliation bill, it would need a mere 51 votes for passage.

However, there remains a question as to whether the various elements of the bill relating to NLRA amendments meet the standards for a budget reconciliation bill, meaning, they must be limited to budgetary matters. The Senate Parliamentarian decides (in an advisory capacity) whether specific terms of a reconciliation bill meet that standard. In September, the Parliamentarian rejected certain immigration provisions of the original bill on that basis. Senate Republicans reportedly will challenge the remaining NLRA civil penalty amendments as beyond the scope of a reconciliation bill.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 347
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Thomas V. Walsh, Jackson Lewis, employment arbitration Lawyer, White plains, Union Organizing Attorney
Shareholder

Thomas V. Walsh is a Shareholder in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Since joining the firm in 1986, Mr. Walsh has represented employers in all aspects of labor and employment law and litigation.

Mr. Walsh has represented employers before numerous state and federal courts, regulatory agencies, as well as in numerous arbitrations. Mr. Walsh has extensive experience in representing employers faced with union organizing drives and in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board. He has an...

914-872-6912
Jonathan J. Spitz, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Labor Employment Attorney, Atlanta
Shareholder

Jonathan J. Spitz is a Principal in the Atlanta, Georgia, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is Co-Leader of the firm’s Labor and Preventive Practices Group.

Mr. Spitz lectures extensively, conducts management training, and advises clients with respect to legislative and regulatory initiatives, corporate strategies, business ethics, social media issues and the changing regulatory landscape. He understands the practical and operational needs of corporate America, helping design pragmatic strategies to minimize risk and maximize performance. He has represented...

404-586-1835
Richard F. Vitarelli Harford  Connecticut Labor Relations Lawyer at Jackson Lewis Law Firm
Principal

Richard F. Vitarelli is a Principal in the Hartford, Connecticut, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Part of the firm’s national labor practice, he has over two decades of experience representing employers nationally in strategic labor relations, collective bargaining, and union organizing, including in the context of mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructuring and contract administration. He serves as general labor and employment counsel for employers and multi-employer associations in various industries, including construction, manufacturing, health care and senior living,...

860-522-0404
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement