Search form

  • April 28, 2017

Second ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protests and Strikes to Take Place on May 1

Building off of what organizers see a successful February 16 ‘Day Without Immigrants,’ a second series of protests and strikes has been scheduled for May 1.

For more information on similar recent activities and strategies on how to respond lawfully to the protest and strike, see our articles, ‘A Day Without Immigrants’ National Strike Planned – What Can Employers Do? and ‘A Day Without a Woman’ Demonstrations Planned for March 8.

According to the website Portside.org, “By striking, we make it clear that this country cannot function without immigrants. We build confidence that through non-cooperation, we can force this country to recognize us and realize that it depends on us. It is not until the United States accepts that it cannot sustain itself without immigrant labor that we will be able to win permanent protection, dignity, and respect.”

Talk Radio Call Is Protected Concerted Activity

An employee’s call to a talk radio program, during which he criticized staffing and the outcomes of management decisions, was protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act, according to the National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice. Trinity Technology Group, Case 12-CA-165643 (June 9, 2016) (released Mar. 27, 2017). The Division decided the employee’s comments were a “logical outgrowth” of prior common coworker complaints about working conditions and in furtherance of the group’s goals, even though the employee was not deputized to speak for others. The Division determined he spoke without knowledge the statements were false or with a reckless disregard for their truth and that the statements were not so “disloyal” as to lose the protection of the NLRA. A broadcast is transitory, but the words spoken can be lasting.

Disposition of Unfair Labor Practices Cases Taking Up to 14 Weeks, Few ‘Overage’ Cases, NLRB General Counsel Reports

The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel has reported that for Categories III, II, and I unfair labor practice cases, disposition takes 7, 11, and 14 weeks, respectively. (“Disposition” for NLRB case tracking purposes is when the case is “dismissed, deferred, withdrawn, or settled; a complaint is issued; or a 10(k) notice of hearing is issued.”) Memorandum GC 17-02 Report on the Midwinter Meeting of the ABA (Mar. 10, 2017). Under the GC’s Impact Analysis system, cases are prioritized based on public impact and assigned to a category from Category III (highest) to Category I (lowest). For example, a bargaining order investigation (Category III) commands more Board resources than a single allegation of unlawful interrogation (Category I). When a charge is filed, the Region assigns the case an Impact Analysis category. Any case still pending disposition on the last day of the month in which the time target is exceeded is reported as “overage.” Such a case may be excused by the Division of Operations-Management. The Report notes that, in Fiscal Year 2016, only 1.62% of cases in Category I, 1.95% of cases in Category II, and 3.46% of cases in Category III were “overage” without excuse.

Insufficient Funding Hampers Mission, NLRB General Counsel Says

The NLRB is not sufficiently funded to meet its mission, its General Counsel Richard Griffin has admitted. In a March 10, 2017, Memorandum, Griffin wrote to management personnel in the NLRB’s regional offices that “years” of “flat fund[ing]” has had a “detrimental effect on the public.” Memorandum GC 17-02. Ever hopeful, however, in its Fiscal Year 2017 OMB Budget Submission, the NLRB seeks additional funding to “efficiently and effectively” process “comprehensive and complex cases” such as “nationwide efforts to improve the wages ... of retail and fast food workers,” “expanded use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment” agreements, and the expanded use of technology and social media by employees to discuss employment outside the workplace, among other things.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about these and other workplace issues.

©2017 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

August 21, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for July 2018

August 21, 2018

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-... Read More

August 8, 2018

Missouri Right-to-Work Rejected by Voters

August 8, 2018

Missouri voters have rejected the state right-to-work law. Senate Bill 19, which would have made Missouri the nation’s 28th right-to-work state, was passed by the Missouri legislature on February 2, 2017, and signed into law by then-Governor Eric Greitens. Labor organizations and their supporters gathered enough signatures to keep the... Read More

July 19, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for June 2018

July 19, 2018

Public sector employees who are non-members of a union cannot be legally required to pay agency or “fair share” fees as a condition of employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 ruling. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, No. 16-1466 (June 27, 2018). The Court decided that a state’s enforcement of a provision in a collective... Read More

Related Practices