July 3, 2020

Volume X, Number 185

July 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Top Five Labor Law Developments for April 2019

  1. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb urges the Board to return to its traditional joint-employer standard. In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 17 and released on April 29, Robb stated his belief that the Court exceeded its authority in December 2018, when it directed the Board to fashion a joint-employer test consistent with common law joint-employment principles. Robb interpreted that direction as restricting the Board’s ability to reverse its employee-friendly Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), joint-employer standard, a standard that Robb has criticized in the past. Under the test favored by Robb and followed by the Board prior to Browning-Ferris, joint-employer status would be found only where two entities actually share or codetermine employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.

  2. The NLRB found an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it failed to provide a union with financial information requested during bargaining. The employer did not violate the Act, however, when it withheld financial information requested in response to an “inability-to-pay” assertion the employer had retracted. Audio Visual Services Grp., Inc., d/b/a PSAV Presentation Svcs., 367 NLRB No. 103 (Mar. 12, 2019) (reported on in April). During contract negotiations, the employer in this case claimed an inability to afford the union’s initial wage proposal. It later stated it was not claiming “an inability to pay for lack of revenue,” but, instead, was refusing “to pay an hourly rate that would be detrimental to the business.” The union requested financial data on the employer’s general financial performance relating to the employer’s inability to pay claim. The union also requested more specific data on commissions paid and rates charged to clients relating to the employer’s claim about hourly rates. The employer refused to furnish any of the information requested. The Board found the employer was required to provide the specific data (e.g., commission data) needed to substantiate its argument about hourly rates. However, the Board found the employer lawfully withheld the general financial data, because such data is relevant only where the employer claims an inability to pay what the union is asking for, a claim the employer had retracted.

  3. In a decision reversing precedent on a successor employer’s obligations, the NLRB found an employer that became the lessor of a nursing facility violated the NLRA when it failed to recognize the union representing its predecessor’s employees, but not when it unilaterally set new terms and conditions of work for those employees. Ridgewood Health Care Ctr., Inc., 367 NLRB No. 110 (Apr. 2, 2019). The Board found that the new lessor was a successor employer to its predecessor because, absent the successor’s hiring discrimination against the predecessor’s bargaining unit members, the predecessor’s bargaining unit employees would have comprised a majority of the successor’s bargaining unit. However, the Board found the new employer did not violate the Act by setting new employment conditions, such as wages, without bargaining with the union. In Galloway School Lines, 321 NLRB 1422 (1996), the Board held that where an employer refuses to hire some of its predecessor’s employees because of their union membership, the Board would require the successor employer to bargain with the union before changing terms of work, even if the employer also hired some of the predecessor’s unionized employees. Reversing Galloway and returning to its standard in Love’s Barbecue, the Board ruled that it must be “perfectly clear” that an employer discriminatorily refused to hire “all or substantially all” of a unit before it can be required to bargain over new terms and conditions of work. Applying its decision, the Board found the employer, having hired many of the predecessor’s unionized employees, had not discriminated against “substantially all” of the bargaining unit. Therefore, the employer was free to unilaterally set new terms and conditions of work.

  4. In an Advice Memorandum, the Division of Advice found an employer did not violate the NLRA when it asked HR representatives, instead of front-line managers, to respond to union communications. St. Barnabas Medical Ctr., 22-CA-224139, 22-CA-224866 (Mar. 22, 2019, released Apr. 15, 2019). The employer ceased having nurse managers and supervisors respond directly to phone calls, texts, and emails from the union concerning union matters, such as grievances. It instead instructed the managers to refer such communications to the employer’s HR team for response. The Division found the changes in practice did not interfere with employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights to engage in “concerted activities” for their mutual aid and protection since, for example, union representatives still received attention to employee grievances and other matters. Assessing an unrelated allegation, the Division also found the employer did not violate the Act when it required an employee to provide a written account during an investigatory interview, although the employer previously allowed verbal accounts, because there was no evidence the change in procedure affected any employee’s Section 7 rights.

  5. The #MeToo movement may be affecting organized labor. At least some unions are placing #MeToo-related demands at the forefront in contract negotiations, proposing changes to employers’ codes of conduct and demanding stronger employer disciplinary action in response to workplace sexual discrimination and abuse, according to a Law360 article. Other unions have proposed collective bargaining agreement terms that would require sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims to be submitted directly to arbitration, bypassing internal employer investigations. The article also details how some unions have revised their internal codes of conduct for union staff members to include stronger anti-harassment protections. The push by unions follows reports of a number of prominent union officials being ousted following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 135


About this Author

Philip B. Rosen Jackson Lewis  Preventive Practices Lawyer & Collective Bargaining Attorney

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is a member of the firm's Board of Directors and co-leads the firm's Labor and Preventive Practices Group. He joined the firm in 1979 and served as Managing Partner of the New York City office from 1989 to 2009.

Mr. Rosen lectures extensively, conducts management training, and advises clients with respect to legislative and regulatory initiatives, corporate strategies, business ethics, social media, reorganizations and reductions-...

Jonathan J. Spitz, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Labor Employment Attorney, Atlanta

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 management in dozens of counter-organizing drives and participated in countless unfair labor practice proceedings, discrimination charges and other matters before the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal and state administrative agencies, as well as in collective bargaining, arbitration and in employment litigation before state and federal courts. Mr. Spitz regularly counsels employers in employee relations and discipline and discharge matters, and also assists employers in drafting employment policies and in complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act, drug testing laws and regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal and state employment laws.

Howard Bloom, Jackson Lewis, labor union attorney, unfair practice investigations lawyer, employment legal counsel, bargaining law

Howard M. Bloom is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has practiced labor and employment law representing exclusively employers for more than 36 years.

Mr. Bloom counsels clients in a variety of industries on labor law issues. He trains and advises executives, managers and supervisors on union awareness and positive employee relations, and assists employers in connection with union card-signing efforts, traditional union representation and corporate campaigns, and union decertification...

Richard Greenberg, Jackson Lewis, workplace grievances lawyer, arbitrations litigation attorney

Richard Greenberg is a Principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He advises both unionized and union-free clients on a full-range of labor and employee relations matters.

With respect to traditional labor matters, Mr. Greenberg represents clients in collective bargaining negotiations, labor disputes, grievances and arbitrations, proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, and in state and federal court. Mr. Greenberg also advises clients on the legal aspects of remaining union-free....

Chad P. Richter, Jackson Lewis PC, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Attorney

Chad Richter is a Principal in the Omaha, Nebraska, office of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Mr. Richter’s practice is divided into three areas: (1) preventive counseling and training; (2) traditional labor law; and (3) workplace litigation. With regard to Mr. Richter’s preventive practice, he routinely provides day-to-day advice and counseling to management on a variety of employment law matters including human resource management, traditional labor relations, employment discrimination, wage and hour, privacy, disability leave management, and reductions in force. Mr....