As we had previously reported, in 2015 the then-Democrat controlled National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the Browning-Ferris case ruled that a joint employer relationship could be found if an entity had mere indirect or potential control over individuals employed by another entity. This decision reversed decades of precedent in which the NLRB held that a joint employer relationship would only be found if one entity had “direct and immediate control” over individuals employed by another entity.
Continue Reading Ping-Pong Anyone? NLRB Vacates Hy-Brand and Reinstates – For the Moment – Browning-Ferris

Board Member Philip Miscimarra’s term on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) expired last week with a bang rather than a whimper. In the final days of his tenure, the Board reversed four controversial Obama-era decisions addressing joint employers, workplace policies, micro-units, and the duty to bargain. These decisions, summarized below, will impact all employers, not just those with unionized workforces. Although the Board now returns to a 2-2 Republican to Democrat split as a result of Miscimarra’s departure, once his Republican replacement is confirmed employers should expect to see more decisions on the chopping block.
Continue Reading NLRB Reverses Four Obama-Era Decisions

In this 20-minute podcast, Hank Sledz and Lauren Novak discuss Congress’ push to allow private companies to offer comp time in lieu of paying time-and-a-half for overtime under the Working Families Flexibility Act, how employer-friendly the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Department of Labor will be under new leadership, and other important changes during

In a major victory for the business community, Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent nationwide injunction blocking the Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing its new “persuader” rule. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00066. The rule attempted to expand disclosure requirements by employers and their consultants (including attorneys) related to union-organizing campaigns.
Continue Reading Judge Not Persuaded, Permanently Enjoins DOL’s New Reporting Rule

Another federal court of appeals has weighed in on the question of whether requiring employees to waive the right to bring a class action against their employer in arbitration or court as a condition of employment violates employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Continue Reading Is the Tide Turning Against Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements?

The current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has done it again, once more overturning existing precedent. In a decision issued July 11, 2016, the Board abandoned its 2004 Oakwood Care Center decision (343 NLRB 659) which stood for the proposition that a unit comprising the employees of a “supplier” employer (such as a leasing or temporary agency) and those of a “user” employer was not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes, absent the consent of both employers. Miller & Anderson, Inc. and Tradesman International and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 19, AFL-CIO, 364 NLRB No. 39.
Continue Reading Temporary Employees—Or Long-Term Bargaining Obligation?

In a decision that creates a split with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 7th Circuit on May 26, 2016 adopted the National Labor Relations Board’s D.R. Horton rationale and held that a condition of employment requiring employees to waive the right to bring class or collective actions either in arbitration or in judicial forums runs afoul of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and is unenforceable as illegal.  Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, No.15-2997 (7th Cir. 2016).
Continue Reading 7th Circuit Holds Mandatory Waiver of Class Claims Unlawful; Creates Circuit Court Split

Thinking about running an anti-union campaign or consulting an attorney about your company’s non-union preferences? You may want to get started now, because the game is changing. In a move widely-believed by the business community to be political payback to labor unions, the Department of Labor (DOL) on Wednesday published a new final rule that closes perceived loopholes in Section 203 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and greatly expands reporting requirements for employers and labor consultants alike. Under the old rule, reporting of persuader activity by a labor relations consultant (including attorneys) was not required unless the consultant had direct contact with employees. Under the new rule, which goes into effect July 1, 2016, disclosure of even indirect contact with employees will be required.
Continue Reading Closing the Loophole: Department of Labor Issues Final “Persuader” Rule

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) long-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No.186, will dramatically impact business for companies ranging from leased employee staffing arrangements to franchisor-franchisee models.

The August 27, 2015 decision just turned 30 years of established precedent on its head. Since the mid-1980’s, the NLRB has followed a standard finding an entity to be a joint employer of another entity’s employees only if it had significant control over the employment terms of those employees, such as the right to hire, fire, discipline, supervise or direct the day-to-day methods by which employees completed their job duties.
Continue Reading Franchisor and Franchisee: Two Peas In A Pod (But What Will The NLRB’s Ruling Really Produce?)

On June 26, 2015, the National Labor Relations (NLRB) Board issued two decisions which significantly impact the confidentiality of employer investigations into employee misconduct.

In the first case, Banner Health Systems, 362 NLRB No. 137, a 2-1 Board majority reaffirmed an  earlier decision which had been vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals since the Board lacked a proper quorum based upon the Supreme Court’s Noel Canning decision.
Continue Reading NLRB Rulings Impact Confidentiality of Employer Investigations