Rojgar Job News

If April Showers bring May…Oh never mind. In Connecticut, April might as well mean that the General Assembly is getting serious about the bills under consideration.  All the proposals that make headlines in February mean nothing until committees start to vote on the bills and the bills start getting the spotlight on them. Usually by now, we start to see a significant fall off between aspirational goals and practical bills. Not this year. Right now, however, it feels like there is still so much in play.  Things are changing rapidly so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to look at each bill individually.  But beyond the Paid FMLA and the Minimum Wage bills that have gotten the most press, there are still several others that are worth following. SHB 6913 would make massive changes to the state’s non-compete laws. The current version would limit non-competes to one year unless special circumstances would apply. Non-competes would also be unenforceable if the em...

As a part of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Unified Agenda”) issued Wednesday, May 22, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced its regulatory road map, indicating three areas of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) under which the agency intends to develop new or modified rules: access to an employer’s private property; standards to determine when students who perform work at a private college or university in connection with their studies are “employees” within Section 2(3) of the NLRA; and representation election regulations, including the Board’s current procedures for blocking an election petition after the filing of an unfair labor practices charge, voluntary recognition, and the formation of Section 9(a) bargaining relationships in the construction industry. Each of these issues has been the subject of abundant litigation before the NLRB in the recent past. On the issu...

One of labor unions’ key tactics relies prominently on balloon animals. Since the late 1980s, unions have used large inflatable animals – such as the infamous Scabby the Rat – to pressure employers and advertise labor disputes without running afoul of certain legal obligations. As we recently discussed on this blog, however, one recent court decision created questions about when unions may lawfully display Scabby, his pal Fat Cat, and any other inflatable animal buddies they may have. Then, earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board released a memorandum showing that the Board itself might curtail this practice. This is a key issue for unions and many employers, because the law significantly restricts how unions may publicize disputes at certain types of worksites. For example, when a union has a dispute with one employer but wants to publicize that dispute at another employer’s site (such as a dispute with a construction subcontractor working at a ge...

On June 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued another favorable decision for employers who might find themselves facing union organizing activities or other types of union solicitation.  This latest decision will make it significantly more difficult for unions to solicit employees, strategize with supporters, or engage in similar activities on an employer’s property. Historically, while federal labor law has recognized employers’ property rights, it has created certain exceptions.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized several decades ago in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. that an employer must allow a union to access its property if the union could not otherwise communicate with employees ( e.g. , if the employees all lived on the property, such as in mining camps or other remote worksites).  As another example, the NLRB historically recognized that, if an employer allowed the general public to access its property,...

Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board announced that it is proposing three new changes to its rules, all of which concern the procedures for unions to represent certain workers. If these changes are implemented, they could create significant consequences when employees are attempting to decertify a labor union, when an employer has voluntarily decided to recognize a union, and for unions in the construction industry that are not supported by a majority of employees. Once again, the NLRB is attempting to make these changes through formal rulemaking, rather than by issuing written decisions, which could make it more difficult for future versions of the NLRB to overturn the changes. First, the NLRB proposed changing its policy when employees have sought an election and a party has filed an unfair labor practice charge. As the law currently stands, the NLRB will not hold certain types of elections if an unfair labor practice charge is pending and that ULP charge questions e...

Between August 29 and September 10, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued four decisions that resolve important issues that have been the subject of long-running disputes.  It also issued an invitation to submit briefs in a case that provides an opportunity for the current Board majority members to revise the standard for when employee conduct loses protection under the National Labor Relations Act. Misclassification of Employees As Contractors Alone Does Not Violate Federal Law On August 29, 2019, the NLRB decided that employers who incorrectly classify employees as independent contractors – who are not subject to the protections and benefits of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which applies only to non-managerial, non-supervisory employees – do not violate the NLRA because misclassification “does not, in and of itself, contain any ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit....

On October 10, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) decision in LA Specialty Produce Company provided some employer-friendly clarification of its standard for assessing the lawfulness of employee handbook provisions under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), and in doing so, categorized two specific types of policies as generally lawful.  In this case, the Board analyzed the following two handbook rules maintained by LA Specialty Produce to determine whether the rules improperly impeded or chilled employees’ NLRA rights to engage in protected concerted activity for the purpose of their mutual aid and protection: Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure : “Every employee is responsible for protecting any and all information that is used, acquired or added to regarding matters that are confidential and proprietary of [LA Specialty Produce] including, but not limited to client/vendor lists…” ...

Employers are often surprised to learn that federal labor law grants employees significant protection to make profane or offensive statements, or engage in other offensive conduct, when they are engaging in “protected concerted activities.” Under existing law, when an employee behaves offensively while attempting to improve group working conditions (such as by striking, circulating a petition, challenging management, or complaining about working conditions on social media), the employer may not automatically discipline or discharge the employee for that offensive conduct. Rather, the National Labor Relations Board historically has considered several factors when determining whether or not an employee’s offensive conduct caused the employee to lose protection under federal labor law. This standard has prompted numerous cases where the Board has required employers to reinstate employees who profanely insulted coworkers, aggressively yelled at managers, or even directed s...

The National Labor Relations Board issued a slew of precedent-changing decisions this month, as well as significant changes to its rules and regulations. These new rules and decisions will change labor law in several key ways for both union and non-union employers, including during union elections, during internal investigations, when employees seek to use work email to discuss unions or group working conditions, and during CBA negotiations. New Election Rules The most notable change (but not necessarily the most significant) involved the NLRB finalizing its new rules for representation elections. As we have previously discussed on this blog, the NLRB had been preparing since December 2017 to change these rules from the controversial “quickie election rules” issued by the Democrat-majority NLRB in 2014. The NLRB now has finalized these new rules and, unless a court stays or voids the new rules, they will become effective on April 16, 2020. These rules will extend the period ...

In yet another sign of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 19, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) announced that all representation elections – secret ballot elections held to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a labor union – are  suspended, including mail ballot elections, until April 3, 2020.  The Board’s announcement to suspend elections cited the health and safety of NLRB employees and members of the public involved in the election process, as well as limitations on the Board’s ability to conduct elections given the closure of several Regional Offices due to employee coronavirus exposure (Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Manhattan, and New Orleans) and because it has instructed all NLRB personnel to telework. Regular readers of our blog will recall that in 2015, the NLRB implemented substantial changes to process by which employees vote in secret ballot elections.  These changes were largely geared towa...

In a previous blog, in a world before the coronavirus hit Europe, we noted the social elections that Belgian employers have to organise in 2020 [here] for the appointment of employee representatives to the Works Council and Health & Safety Committee. Being a representative of that sort (and also being a candidate for that role) gives wide-ranging protections against detriment and dismissal. As a consequence, with the social elections comes a Belgian peculiarity, the “occult period”. This is a period of 65 days, ending ultimately on 30 March, over which employees can stand as candidates in those elections but before the candidate list is communicated to the employer. It is therefore unaware who has that protection and who doesn’t. Practical consequence: all terminations are put on hold until April. Because of the Covid-19 crisis however, the social elections have been postponed, probably until the second half of November at the earliest. Mercifully the occult period...

With almost all of the current news being focused on coronavirus-related topics, it’s easy to forget that courts and agencies continue to do their jobs, issuing decisions and opinions. On occasion, one of those decisions is significant enough to warrant a distraction from all things COVID-19. A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) decision is one such instance. One of the functions of the NLRB is to oversee representation case elections, which are elections conducted to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a labor union. These elections are conducted using traditional paper ballots marked by employees by hand with a pencil or pen. The ballots are hardly complicated; they ask a single question regarding the employee’s union-representation preference, requiring only that an employee make a mark in a box labeled “Yes” if he or she desires union representation, or make a mark in a box labeled “No” if not. Seems simple eno...

The National Labor Relations Board continues to clarify and update employers’ obligations in key areas. As discussed below, one recent decision clarifies when employers may enter into arbitration agreements that require employees to keep the proceedings confidential. Another recent decision rescinded a rule issued by the Obama-era NLRB and clarified, for employers who are negotiating their first contract with a labor union, when the employers may discipline employees. NLRB Upholds Confidentiality Provision in Arbitration Agreement The first decision, California Commerce Club, Inc. , provides important clarification for all employers. As background, in many situations, the NLRB deems it unlawful for an employer to bar employees from discussing certain terms and conditions of employment. The NLRB takes the position that certain such confidentiality rules can unlawfully restrict employees from engaging in “protected concerted activities,” such as communicating as part of ...