July 22, 2019

July 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced its rulemaking agenda for the coming months. 

The Board stated that it plans to engage in additional rulemaking in the following areas: 1) representation case procedures (governing union elections); 2) standards for “blocking charges” (governing when unfair labor practice charges “block” union elections); 3) voluntary recognition (governing when and how employers may recognize unions without the need for an election); 4) the formation of bargaining relationships in the construction industry; 5) the standard for determining whether students employed at private colleges or universities may organize; and 6) access to employer property. The Board also stated that it plans to proceed with its rulemaking regarding the joint-employer standard.

The NLRB’s Division of Advice has found that Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and therefore were not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Uber Technologies, Inc., 13-CA-163062, 14-CA-158833, 29-CA-177483 (Apr. 16, 2019, released May 14, 2019).

A number of Uber X and UberBLACK drivers filed unfair labor practice charges against Uber, alleging violations of the NLRA. Responding to the charges, Uber alleged its drivers were independent contractors, not employees, and therefore were not covered by the NLRA. Directing that the charges be dismissed, the Division of Advice applied SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (Jan. 25, 2019), in which the Board modified its test for determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor. The Division found the Uber drivers were independent contractors, because they had “significant entrepreneurial opportunity” in that they controlled their own work schedules, were free to choose login locations, could work for competitors and other employers, and generally owned and controlled their own cars. For a discussion of the SuperShuttle decision, see our article, Labor Board Returns to Pre-2014 Test for Determining if Individual Is an Independent Contractor.

The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee approved legislation that would significantly increase NLRB funding for FY 2020. 

Under the funding bill, NLRB funding would increase to $341 million, approximately 34 percent higher than the amount budgeted for 2019. The bill now advances to the full House. The large NLRB increase effectively rejects the Trump Administration’s proposal to cut NLRB funding. While the bill may pass the House, it is less likely to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate, or by President Donald Trump.

The NLRB General Counsel has released a memorandum instructing NLRB regional officials to remove evidentiary requirements on individuals challenging the propriety of fees charged by unions. Beck Case Handling and Chargeability Issues, Memorandum GC 19-06 (Apr. 29, 2019, released May 3, 2019).

The memorandum lowers the quantum of proof required from nonmember individuals represented by unions when they challenge the chargeability of union fees. Previously, employees challenging union fees were required to explain why a particular chargeable expenditure was not for a representational purpose and present or point to evidence in support of that claim. Regional officials will no longer require individuals challenging such fees to explain why a particular expenditure should not have been charged. They also no longer will need to present evidence in support of such assertions. The burden remains on the union to demonstrate the expenses it charges are “representational,” meaning they are germane to collective bargaining.

In a memorandum, the NLRB’s Division of Advice found an employer did not violate the NLRA when it refused to deduct and remit dues to a union local following the local’s merger into another local. Vistra Energy, 16-CA-231249 (Apr. 1, 2019, released May 14, 2019).

The employer’s unionized employees signed dues checkoff authorizations requiring the employer to deduct dues and to remit the dues to the union. After the employer closed one of its plants, the union international merged the local covering that location into another local. The employer required employees to complete new dues authorization cards naming the new local, leading the union to file an unfair labor practice charge alleging the requirement violated the NLRA. The Advice Division found the requirement did not violate the NLRA, since the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer contained checkoff language authorizing dues remittance to the original local only.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

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

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-in-force, purchase/sale transactions, sexual harassment and other workplace conduct rules, compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, wrongful discharge and other workplace litigation, corporate campaigns and union organizing matters, collective bargaining, arbitration and National Labor Relations Board proceedings. He has been quoted by the press on many labor matters, including the National Labor Relations Board’s recent initiatives on protected concerted activity and the proposed Notice Posting requirements.

Mr. Rosen has extensive experience advising clients developing integrated corporate-wide labor relations strategies - whether the organization is union-free, partially unionized or entirely unionized. He has led teams conducting multi-facility labor-related legal assessments where clients are seeking to develop creative, strategic legal approaches which anticipate major issues and achieve a company’s labor relations goals. Mr. Rosen also has advised clients being confronted with corporate campaigns and requests for neutrality agreements. He has represented organizations seeking to maximize management rights through their development of pro-active employee relations approaches to remain union-free. He also has advised unionized organizations on lawful negotiating strategies – in situations ranging from “hard bargaining” to recapture management rights to more “cooperative” negotiations – in all cases, providing legal advice designed to assist clients in achieving their primary goals.

212-545-4000
Howard Bloom, Jackson Lewis, labor union attorney, unfair practice investigations lawyer, employment legal counsel, bargaining law
Principal

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...

617-367-0025
Richard Greenberg, Jackson Lewis, workplace grievances lawyer, arbitrations litigation attorney
Principal

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....

212-545-4080
Chad P. Richter, Jackson Lewis PC, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Attorney
Principal

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....

402-827-4233