Search form

  • August 21, 2018
  1. Business lobbyists reportedly are urging the Trump Administration to not re-nominate National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Mark Gaston Pearce (D) for a third term. Pearce’s term at the five-member Board is scheduled to expire on August 27, 2018. Pearce has drawn the ire of business groups for what many believe to be an anti-business approach on many issues before the Board. Pearce would like to be re-nominated and remain on the Board. It is unclear whether Congressional Democrats will pressure the Administration to re-nominate Pearce and whether Pearce would have the votes to be reconfirmed if he is re-nominated.

     

  2. The Board’s decision-making processes are going through significant changes. Memorandum ICG 18-06 from Associate to the NLRB General Counsel Beth Tursell outlines plans to centralize representation case decision writing, to streamline the Division of Advice’s review of unfair labor practice charges, and to encourage Board Regional Directors to delegate decision-making authority to supervisors, including for approving dismissals, withdrawals, and some settlements. Additionally, the Memorandum announces establishment of new committees within each NLRB region that will consider certain pre-election disputes, research election issues, and draft orders for review by regional directors. This follows NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb’s earlier announcement to regional directors that he hopes to consolidate the Board’s regional offices. That proposal was met by resistance from many Board staff members.

     

  3. The U.S. Department of Labor’s “persuader” rule was rescinded on July 17. The regulation would have expanded reporting by consultants working on behalf of employers engaged in union election campaigns. On March 24, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) had published its final rule relating to “persuader” activity under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Under the DOL’s proposed interpretation, employers/clients, as well as consultants/attorneys, would have been required to report to the DOL all arrangements in which an “object” (directly or indirectly) of the services provided by the consultant/attorney was 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.

     

  4. The NLRB is reconsidering employees’ right to use their employer’s email system for union organizing and other protected activity. On August 1, 2018, the NLRB invited the public to file briefs on whether the Board should overrule Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB 1050 (2014), in which the Board held employees who have been given access to their employer’s email system for work-related purposes must be permitted to use that system, on non-working time, for National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 7 communications, unless the employer can demonstrate that special circumstances necessary to maintain production or discipline justify restricting that right. The Board in Purple Communications had overruled Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007), where it held employers could lawfully restrict employees’ non-work email use as long as they do so in a non-discriminatory manner. In its invitation for briefing, the Board asked the public: 1) whether it should adhere to, modify, or overrule Purple Communications; 2) what standard should replace Purple Communications, if overruled; 3) if Register Guard is revived, what exceptions should be maintained for employee use of email, if any; and 4) how electronic communication systems other than email should be treated, whether or not Purple Communications is overruled.

     

  5. An employer did not violate the Act when it terminated an employee who violated the employer’s policy against sharing certain confidential documents on social media, the Board’s Division of Advice has found. Kumho Tires, 10-CA-208153 (Div. of Advice, June 11, 2018, released July 2018). The employee had posted on social media a photograph of another employee’s bonus request form. The employer argued that the employee violated the employer’s social media policy against sharing “internal reports, policies, procedures, or other internal business-related confidential communications.” The Division of Advice found the work rule was lawful under The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (Dec. 15, 2017), because employees would be unlikely to interpret the rule as restricting the sharing of information lawfully in employees’ possession. The Division also found the rule was lawful as applied in the termination, because the employee was not authorized to have another employee’s bonus request form.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions about these developments.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 20, 2019

NLRB Proposes Rule to Exclude Student Workers at Private Colleges, Universities from NLRA Coverage

September 20, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish that “students who perform any services for compensation, including, but not limited to, teaching or research, at a private college or university in connection with their studies are not ‘employees’ within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the... Read More

September 17, 2019

Access to Private Property: Labor Board Rules Girl Scout Cookies and Union Protesters are Different

September 17, 2019

A nonemployee’s solicitation for charitable or civic causes on an employer’s property is not the equivalent of a nonemployee union representative’s engaging in a protest soliciting customers to boycott an employer or in union organizing on the property, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held. Kroger Limited Partnership, 368... Read More

September 13, 2019

Top Five Labor Law Developments for August 2019

September 13, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying its employees as independent contractors. Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 61 (Aug. 29, 2019). Velox engaged drivers classified as independent contractors to transport medical samples to hospitals and... Read More

Related Practices