Search form

Congress Seeks to Block ‘Persuader’ Rule

By Philip B. Rosen
  • April 18, 2016

Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) expressing congressional disapproval and seeking to block implementation of the United States Department of Labor’s controversial Final Rule relating to “persuader” activity under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The Rule is set to become effective on April 25, 2016.

Under the new DOL rule, published on March 24, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 15,924), both the employer/client and its consultant/attorney would be required to report to the DOL all arrangements in which an “object” (directly or indirectly) of the services provided by the consultant/attorney is to persuade employees about the manner of exercising the employees’ “right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” under federal labor law. (See our article, DOL’s Rule Redefining LMRDA ‘Advice Exception’ and Expanding Types of Activities Considered Persuasive, Reportable is Finalized – Effective Late April 2016.) The rule will be applicable to agreements, arrangements and payments made on or after July 1, 2016.

Representative Bradley Byrne (R-AL), a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced H.J. Res. 87, saying, “I am proud to introduce legislation to protect hardworking Americans and employers from a rule that would restrict privacy, upend the attorney-client relationship, and limit employee access to information during an organizing campaign.”

In addition, at least three lawsuits have been filed challenging the Final Rule.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 13, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2018

June 13, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements do not violate federal law. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 16-307 (May 21, 2018). The Supreme Court’s... Read More

June 5, 2018

The Wait is Over for Legalized Sports Gambling in New York

June 5, 2018

A provision in New York’s 2013 Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law authorizing casinos to take bets on sporting events had been held in suspension because of the federal ban on state-regulated sports wagering. Now, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (... Read More

May 21, 2018

Supreme Court: Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements Do Not Violate Federal Labor Law

May 21, 2018

Class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a much-anticipated decision in three critical cases. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v.... Read More