Rojgar Job News

My law partner, Gabe Jiran, talks today about whether it’s all that easy to change the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.  Is it just as easy as a vote? Or does it require something more? The answer has implications for all employers.   With all of the talk about the financial difficulties faced by the government, I, and others in here, sometimes get the question of whether the State of Connecticut or other states might try to change the laws on collective bargaining or try to pass legislation to alter the terms of its existing collective bargaining agreements. Other states have started down this road, but it is not that easy. Recently, the Connecticut Attorney General was asked to opine on whether the General Assembly could statutorily change the contracts covering State employees to address the fiscal crisis.  A link to the opinion is here. The short answer is that the State could do so, such as by passing a statute that wage increases be delayed or elimi...

As I noted earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements with employees. My colleague, Gabe Jiran, has a recap of Epic Systems v. Lewis on my firm’s blog, Employment Law Letter, that you can access here. So, it’s a foregone conclusion that employers of all shapes and sizes will start using arbitration agreements and insert provisions with class action waivers, right? Not so fast. As Jon Hyman astutely noted in his Ohio Employer’s Law Blog yesterday, this decision may not be the panacea employers are looking for. For example, it might end up being more costly for employers because arbitration may be more costly than litigation. Moreover, these costs only increase if you are arbitrating dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, of individual claims instead of one class or collective action. Don’t think for a second that this decision will end wage and hour litigation. Instead, plaintiffs’ lawyers,...

If you’ve been following our blog, you already know that the topic of employer-mandated arbitration agreements has been a hot issue in recent years for government agencies and in the state and federal courts.  Most notably, in May of last year, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis , in which it confirmed that employers may require employees to enter into mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment without violating the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  As you may recall, Epic Systems arose out of dispute in which the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) took the position that employer-mandated arbitration agreements requiring that employees waive the right to engage in class or collective litigation are unenforceable because Section 7 of the Act protects an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity, which the NLRB arg...