Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

President Joseph R. Biden on April 12 nominated current Cal/OSHA Chief Doug Parker to lead federal OSHA.  If confirmed, employers should prepare for the potential that California-style enforcement may reach the federal law.

President Biden has pledged to make improved working conditions a central tenet of his administration, including support for changes to federal OSHA and the National Labor Relations Act.  Parker’s nomination is consistent with a trend towards increased enforcement of employers by federal regulators.

Covid-19 has left employers who want their employees back in the office in a difficult position. With the pandemic still raging, many employees are fearful of returning to the office with unvaccinated peers. In order to ease their employees’ concerns and provide a safe work environment, some employers are offering incentives to get vaccinated. Some existing vaccine incentives include gift cards, time off after receiving the second dose, pay for the time spent getting the vaccine, or bonuses ranging from $75 to $500. Although offering vaccine incentives may seem like a solution at this time, employers should be mindful of the legal ramifications of providing their employees with incentives for receiving the vaccine.

On March 22, 2021, Marty Walsh, the two-term Boston mayor, was confirmed as the Labor Secretary by the United States Senate in a 68-29 vote.  He becomes the first union leader to run the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) in over four decades.

Workplace safety will be one area that we can expect to undergo significant change under Walsh.  Recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released a new National Emphasis Program (“NEP”) that permits OSHA to conduct programmed inspections of the risk of worker exposure to COVID-19.  The employers covered by the NEP are those OSHA considers as those where employees have a higher likelihood of close-contact exposure.  The NEP includes language regarding employer outreach and compliance assistance; but, it is clear the primary emphasis will be on inspection targeting.

It is early in 2021 and already the NLRB has before it ALJ determinations that employee handbook policies conflict with the NLRA. When analyzing employee handbook policies, the Board generally applies the Boeing test, whereby a handbook policy’s potential interference with employee rights under the NLRA is balanced against an employer’s legitimate justifications for the policy, when viewing the policy from the employee’s perspective. While the NLRA and the Boeing test apply to a number of employee handbook policies, confidentiality, social media, and solicitation/distribution policies are especially vulnerable.

With the ushering in of a new administration, several changes have quickly taken place at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Within hours of taking office, the Biden administration removed Trump appointee NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb and replaced him with interim General Counsel Peter Ohr.  (Ohr may only serve as acting General Counsel for 40 days, per the National Labor Relations Act, unless the administration submits a nomination to the Senate.)  At least one employer has already sought the dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge arguing that Ohr lacks authority to prosecute the case because Robb was unlawfully removed prior to the expiration of his term.

During the 2020 legislative session, Virginia passed several important employment bills. Perhaps none is more consequential than H.B. 582. Effective as of May 21, 2021, it permits the governing bodies of Virginia cities, towns, counties, and school boards to adopt a local resolution or ordinance authorizing collective bargaining and recognizing labor unions. The bill provides no guidance on how to create and implement a union recognition and bargaining process, leaving such decisions to covered localities. Consequently, the burden to fill in the gaps will fall to local ...

Ten U.S. senators are asking the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to hone in on employers’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”), machine-learning, and other hiring technologies that may result in discrimination.

The group of senators—Michael Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Chris Coons (D-DE), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)—jointly penned a December 8, 2020 letter to Chair Janet Dhillon. The letter urges that EEOC is responsible for combatting discrimination resulting from the use of hiring and other employment technologies. The senators voice concern about a number of hiring technologies, including:

• “[T]ools used in the employee selection process to manage and screen candidates after they apply for a job”;
• “[N]ew modes of assessment, such as gamified assessments or video interviews that use machine-learning models to evaluate candidates”;
• “[G]eneral intelligence or personality tests”; and
• “[M]odern applicant tracking systems.”

With little forewarning to the regulated community, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) passed a sweeping new standard requiring employers in the state to implement prescribed COVID-19 protections. On November 19, Cal/OSHA voted unanimously to pass the “Emergency COVID-19 Prevention Regulations” (the “Standard”) and on November 30, the Standard went into effect. As covered in our previous updates, the Standard obligates employers to, among other things, write and implement a COVID-19 Prevention Program, engage in contact tracing following any positive case that involved potential workplace exposure, require physical distancing and mask wearing and improve ventilation, and to report all “outbreaks” to the public health department.

On December 21, 2020 the NLRB adopted an ALJ’s determination that a union’s request for information about non-bargaining unit employees was relevant. One of the issues present in the case was whether a union’s request for information about non-bargaining unit employees sought relevant information. As discussed below, the NLRB upheld the ALJ’s determination that the information was relevant solely because the employer should have known the information was relevant based on the circumstances surrounding the request.

On December 16, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its COVID-19 guidance with a new section pertaining to vaccinations.

The updated release—“What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws”—discusses how employers who require vaccinations should respond to an employee who is unable or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief.

Earlier this month, the EEOC launched EEOC Explore, “an interactive data query and mapping tool” that gives users access to aggregate data on more than 73,000 employers and 56 million employees across the United States.  According to the agency, EEOC Explore “enables stakeholders to explore and compare data trends across a number of categories, including location, sex, race and ethnicity, and industry sector without the need for experience in computer programming or statistical analysis.”

Given the pervasiveness of social media in society, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) has been forced to frequently weigh in on the intersection between employee and employer’s social media activity and labor law. The Board has released a great catalog of cases over the past decade touching on issues related to the workplace and social media—these issues range from what social media policies and employer may enact to what discipline an employer may impose for an employee’s social media conduct.

California employers now have some guidance from the state in implementing the new “Emergency COVID-19 Prevention Regulations” (“CA ETS”) that went into effect on November 30.

Employers were given no lead-time to comply with these stringent new rules by the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“Cal/OSHA”).  The CA ETS does contain obligations that employers already have in place, which are largely consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance. But, as explained in an earlier update, the regulations also include significant onerous new obligations.  Faced with the threat of civil penalties, employers will now need to implement costly new prevention measures at a time when the pandemic is already putting a huge strain on the economy and businesses in particular. These new measures may ultimately put some employers out of business.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“Cal/OSHA”) voted on November 19 to implement a stringent new standard for employers to follow when implementing COVID-19 protections in the state.

The state’s rulemaking agency for workplace safety voted unanimously (6 to 0) to pass the “Emergency COVID-19 Prevention Regulations” (the “Standard”), which is expected to go into effect within 10 days (assuming the State’s Office of Administrative Law adopts Cal/OSHA’s regulation).

On November 17, 2020 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released proposed updates to its Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination (“Manual”). The draft revisions are available for public input until December 17, 2020, after which the EEOC will consider the public’s input, make any changes, and publish the finalized Manual.

As we previously reported, COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the way representation elections are conducted.  From March 1 to November 16, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board issued 167 election decisions and, of those, only 2 manual elections have been directed to proceed in that time-frame.  This is a marked change in the Board’s longstanding preference for manual elections.  The overwhelming trend towards mail-in elections was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regularly releases guidance and advice to employers to aid in compliance with applicable workplace discrimination laws. For example, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EEOC has frequently issued and updated guidance on how employers can strike the difficult balance between workplace safety and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As originally reported in the American Bar Association’s Summer 2020 Labor & Employment Newsletter, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the inherent risks in holding large gatherings of people, the prospect of mail ballot elections has recently received considerable national attention. Typically, this attention is focused on how mail ballot elections might affect voter turnout or election results in state and federal elections and whether it might benefit one party over the other. So far, state and federal elections have generally continued to be held with inperson voting occurring at polling places, albeit with new safety measures in place.

A proposed rule  published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on October 9, 2020 (the “Proposed Rule”) offers the possibility of expanded information-sharing with respondents/employers in connection with the agency’s conciliation efforts.  The proposed expanded disclosures may enhance the value of conciliation to those parties.

When the EEOC makes a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred based on a charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. (“Title VII”), it must offer the employer an opportunity to resolve the dispute through the “informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.”  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The agency may not commence a civil action against an employer unless it is unable to secure satisfactory remedies through the conciliation process.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).  According to the Proposed Rule, approximately one-third of employers who receive a reasonable cause finding decline to participate in conciliation, and only 41.2% of conciliations between fiscal years 2016 and 2019 were successful. The Proposed Rule characterizes this as a “widespread rejection” of the conciliation process.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause uncertainty for employers across the country, but, as the National Labor Relations Board reiterated on September 18, it does not excuse labor law violations.

NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued General Counsel Memo 20-14 to summarize the types of COVID-related complaints that he has advised the agency to pursue since March 2020.  The theme is clear: in the vast majority of cases, the traditional rules of the National Labor Relations Act apply, even during a pandemic.

Earlier this month, the NLRB General Counsel released a guidance memo urging the Board to apply the “more than ministerial aid” standard when evaluating whether an employer’s assistance in union organizing violates the National Labor Relations Act.

An employer violates Section 8(a) of the NLRA when it provides impermissible support to a union attempting to organize unrepresented employees, and Section 8(b) when it provides impermissible support to employees seeking to decertify or withdraw from a union.  Under current Board precedent, what constitutes “impermissible behavior” under Section 8(a) and 8(b) is governed by two different standards.  When an employer is accused of impermissibly supporting a union’s organizing efforts there’s a “totality of the circumstances” standard.  And, when an employer is accused of impermissibly supporting a decertification petition there’s a “more than ministerial aid” standard.  The application of these different standards to similar employer behavior yielded inconsistent conclusions for what is “impermissible” employer involvement in union organizing. Therefore, the General Counsel now urges the Board to adopt the “more than ministerial aid” standard for both situations.

While most EEOC enforcement actions are related to individual complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation, so-called “pattern or practice” matters are those in which the EEOC attempts to show that an employer has systematically engaged in discriminatory activities. The Equal Employment Opportunity states on its website, “Systemic discrimination involves a pattern or practice, policy, or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company or geographic area.” To combat systemic discrimination, section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the EEOC to sue employers engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination.

In a pending NLRB case, an employees’ rights advocacy group, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (“NRTW”), filed an amicus brief supporting poultry plant workers seeking to decertify their union,  the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“UFCW”), even though there was a collective bargaining agreement in place between the UFCW and their employer. The facts of the case are complex. But, the issue presented in the amicus brief and reply from the union is simple: should the NLRB abolish the decades-old contract bar rule that prohibits an election to oust a union with a collective bargaining agreement in effect?

On July 27, 2020 the NLRB issued a supplemental decision involving a labor law successor employer, which unilaterally implemented terms and conditions of employment prior to commencing operations. The question presented was whether and to what extent the successor could take further unilateral action, free of the duty to bargain with the union. As discussed below, the Board determined that the applicable standard in such cases is whether the successor’s unilateral action was “reasonably encompassed” by the unilaterally imposed terms.

Over the past 40 years, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has grappled with the appropriate balance between an employer’s right to discipline an employee for abusive behavior and an employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity. Much to the dismay of employers, this balancing act has historically tipped heavily in favor of protecting an employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity at the expense of an employer’s right to discipline its employees for conduct such as using racial slurs while picketing, engaging in sexist behavior, or yelling obscenities at a supervisor while discussing wages. As a result, the Board has issued countless decisions finding an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) for disciplining employees who engage in objectively offensive, racist, and abusive conduct while also engaged in Section 7 activity.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued its third, and presumably final, decision in the lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s new election rules. In the latest order, the Court granted summary judgement in favor of the NLRB on the remaining counts of the complaint.

On June 12, 2020, the D.C. Circuit vacated a component of an NLRB decision that expanded employee rights under NLRB v. J. Weingarten. The D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB’s determination that a mere statement of fact constituted an employee’s requests for union representation.

In a dispute between Circus Circus Casinos, Inc. (the “Employer”) and an employee, the Employer, pursuant to OSHA regulations and internal policies, required the employee to submit to a medical examination prior to participating in a fitting process for necessary equipment, to ensure the equipment would not jeopardize the employee’s safety. The employee refused to take the medical examination and returned to work. The Employer suspended the employee, pending an investigation into the employee’s refusal to take the mandatory medical examination. At the investigatory interview, the employee stated, “I called the union three times [and] nobody showed up, I’m here without representation.” The Employer proceeded with the interview, which culminated in the employee’s termination.

As indicated in our previous blog on this topic, on May 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a two page order invalidating five elements of the NLRB’s 2019 election regulation, based on Count One of the plaintiff’s complaint.  On June 7, the court issued its promised memorandum opinion further explaining that order.

The opinion makes three key points.

In mid-May the NLRB established a clear rule regarding stray marks on ballots in union representation elections, eradicating years of convoluted and inconsistent precedent. The decision, which applied retroactively, resulted in a union’s failure to amass a majority of the votes and, consequently, a reversal of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representation.

In a dispute between Providence Portland Medical Center (the “Employer”) and Service Employees International Union Local 49 (the “Union”), the representation election was decided by the narrowest margin, ultimately resulting in 383 votes for representation, and 382 votes against representation. Included in the mix was a single ballot with a clear “X” in the “Yes” box and a dark diagonal line with a smudge mark in the “No” box. The ALJ and Regional Director applied Board precedent and both concluded that the smudge mark on the diagonal line in the “No” box was an “obvious attempt at erasure,” resulting in the ballot being counted in favor of representation.

One day before they were to go into effect, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. blocked portions of the NLRB’s recently promulgated election rule, but left the agency free to implement the remainder.  American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. National Labor Relations Board, Civ. No. 20-cv-0675 (KBJ) (May 30, 2020).

Specifically, the Court granted the AFL-CIO’s motion for summary judgment “with respect to Count One of the Complaint”, but “will not vacate the remainder of the rule,” which was “remanded to the NLRB for reconsideration in light of this Court’s ruling.”

In another decision recognizing employers’ rights to issue reasonable prohibitions even if they have some slight impact of employees’ right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act, a beverage manufacturer’s rules banning cell phones in food production and warehouse working areas was recently upheld by the National Labor Relations Board.  Cott Beverages Inc., 369 NLRB No. 82 (2020).

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the EEOC has periodically released updates to its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” which Hunton previously posted about here and here. These questions and answers have provided employers with much needed guidance on the EEOC’s position on how employers can ensure the safety of their employees while at the same time not running afoul of the ADA.

Since 2014, OFCCP-covered employers have been required to invite job applicants, pre-offer, to disclose their disability status via a form prescribed by the OFCCP.  The information thus obtained helps employers analyze (1) the efficacy of their diversity recruiting efforts and (2) hiring rates of persons with disabilities.

This week, the Agency unveiled a modified format for that invitation. OFCCP hopes the revised form will increase the response rate for applicants and employees, who are often reluctant to disclose disabilities.  The form incorporates some changes requested by employers, and reduces the invitation to a single page.

Today the EEOC published a Notice in the Federal Register, announcing a delay in its collection of EEO-1 Component 1 data -- until March of 2021 -- due to the coronavirus pandemic.  (FR Doc. 2020-09876).  Component 1 data is what most employers associate with the EEO-1 Report: employment data summarized by job category, race/ethnicity, and gender.  There will now be no EEO-1 Reports submitted in 2020.

On May 1, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released an OSHA Alert for restaurants and beverage service businesses providing curbside and takeout service during the pandemic.  This Alert is one in a series of industry-specific alerts that OSHA has published, and will continue to publish, to assist and educate businesses that will re-open (or that continued to operate), and which recommends certain measures to protect employees and patrons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Centers for Disease Control and Occupational Safety and Health Administration collaborated to release new guidance for employers in the meat processing industry on April 26.

OSHA and the CDC noted several unique facets of meat processing work that exposed workers to increased likelihood of COVID-19 transmission at work, including close contact, the duration of the close contact, shared tools and surfaces and the frequency of ride-sharing and community-based interactions among employees.  As a result, the organizations released additional guidance to help employers keep employees safe, even as they continue to work to keep the food supply chain running.

In a recent decision of first impression, the NLRB held that its contract coverage doctrine does not apply to changes to the terms and conditions of employment after the expiration of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, unless the contract contained explicit language that the relevant provision would survive contract expiration.  Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, 369 NLRB No. 61 (2020).

The contract coverage doctrine was adopted by the NLRB in MV Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019). There, the Board held that it would “examine the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement to determine whether action taken by an employer was within the compass or scope of contractual language granting the employer the right to act unilaterally.”  Id.  The contract coverage doctrine dispenses with the requirement that an employer demonstrate that the union clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over changes made based on contractual language.

On April 23, 2020, the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” which Hunton previously posted about here, to address questions that many employers are struggling with related to employee COVID-19 testing.  The EEOC’s new guidance confirms that employers are authorized to administer COVID-19 tests before allowing employees to enter the workplace, and that doing so does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

EEOC guidance on COVID-19 continues to evolve as the medical community learns more about the virus.  On April 9, 2020, the EEOC expanded the list of symptoms about which employers may ask when screening employees entering the workplace, without running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Previously, employers were permitted to ask individuals if they were experiencing fever, chills, cough, sore throat, or shortness of breath. In the agency’s most recent update to its “Technical Assistance Questions and Answers about COVID-19,” it acknowledged that the medical profession now recognizes that the virus may present with the additional symptoms of a sudden loss of smell or taste, as well as gastrointestinal problems, such as nausea, diarrhea or vomiting.  Inquiries about these symptoms are now permitted, as well.

Almost overnight, COVID-19 has radically altered the American workplace.  Employers and employees alike have been forced to adapt to unique issues related to employee health, compensation, leave, and in unfortunate circumstances, furlough or lay-off.

Such change may be accompanied by grievances, concerns, and fears.  And in some instances, employees will desire to communicate those anxieties to the greater public at large.  Naturally, employers will want to have some degree of control over this messaging, while preserving the rights of employees to express themselves individually or collectively.  These principles are sometimes difficult to reconcile.  But a recent NLRB decision, Karen Jo Young v. Maine Coast Regional Health Facilities, issued on March 30, illuminates some fundamental principles that can help employers manage this balance during these difficult circumstances.

Factual Summary

An employer’s duty to bargain may change during emergency situations, and the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board released a series of case summaries Friday to help employers navigate the exceptions.

General Counsel Peter Robb summarized nine Board cases addressing both general public emergencies and emergencies particular to individual employers.  Robb did not make any declarations about how the COVID-19 outbreak and associated response might affect bargaining obligations, but the summarized cases provide good examples of bargaining exceptions that may or may not apply.

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently published Guidance for Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 (“Guidance”), outlining steps employers can take to help protect their workforce. The Guidance focuses on the need for employers to implement engineering, administrative, work practice controls and personal protective equipment (“PPE”), as well as considerations for doing so. While there is no specific OSHA standard covering infectious disease or COVID-19 in particular, some OSHA requirements may apply to preventing occupational exposure to the virus including OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.20) Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910 Subpart I) Hazard Communication (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200) and Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 C.F.R. § 1904). Also, the General Duty Clause of OSHA which requires employers to provide a “place of employment . . . free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

Employers with collective bargaining agreements and union relationships know they generally cannot make unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment.  But in an unprecedented emergency like the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak we are all facing, union bargaining obligations may be relaxed, either based on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or under National Labor Relations Board law.  As employers are forced to make ever more difficult operational decisions in the face of this emerging threat, here are some issues unionized businesses should consider when contemplating major workplace changes.

Consider Contract Terms First

 It goes without saying that employers with collective bargaining agreements should first examine the language of their contracts to determine whether they provide for any increased flexibility in decision-making during emergencies, such as a public health emergency.  If the terms of a company’s CBA specifically allow for increased operational flexibility during emergency situations, then the CBA should govern, and the employer should proceed accordingly.

On February 26, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finalized its rule governing joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.

The final rule generally restores the “direct and immediate control” standard that the NLRB applied for decades prior to the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, but provides additional guidance.

On February 5th the NLRB determined that an employer can, pursuant to a phone use policy, prohibit the possession and use of cell phones in the cabs of its commercial vehicles, and that a prohibition does not interfere with the Section 7 rights of its employees.

In Country Wide Financial Corporation, 369 NLRB No. 12 (2020) (Countrywide), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) ruled that an mandatory arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) because it restricted an employees’ ability to file and pursue unfair labor practice charges before the Board.

The last few weeks of a National Labor Relations Board Member’s term can be a busy time.  This is especially true when a Member’s imminent departure will leave the Board without any Members from the minority political party.  The Board historically has avoided major shifts in precedent without the participation of both parties.

Last month was no different.  As the clock wound down on Democrat Lauren McFerran’s term this December, the Board issued a flurry of significant rules and opinions that pare back many of the most anti-employer precedents set during the Obama-era.  Issuing these rulings prior to Member McFerran’s departure allowed the Board to include her dissenting views in most cases.  But ultimately, the Republican-majority prevailed–resulting in good news for employers going forward on multiple fronts.  We summarize the Board’s “December to Remember” below.

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule modifying its representation case procedures.

The final rule takes effect April 17, 2020, and scales back—but does not completely undo—the changes to election regulations instituted by the Obama-era’s Board that have caused employers heartburn since 2015. Those changes effectively sped up the election process and cut down on employers’ ability to litigate many important legal issues prior to voting, putting employers at a disadvantage.

In an October Advice Memorandum, the Office of the General Counsel for the NLRB (General Counsel) concluded that a union’s continued actions of unlawful insistence are not a refusal to bargain if bargaining negotiations have ceased.

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) under the current administration continues to issue employer friendly rulings in the context of evaluating whether employer work rules violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).   In LA Specialty Produce Company, 368 NLRB No. 93 (October 10, 2019) (“LA Produce”), the Board’s first ruling applying the standard in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) for determining the validity of rules, policies and handbook provisions under the Act, the Board’s three-member majority opined that the employer’s rules limiting workers’ comments to reporters and blocking them from sharing certain information about clients are legal despite a union’s claims that the rules encroach on workers’ rights under the Act. The decision offers the first glimpse at how the Board’s Republican leadership will balance workers’ rights and their employers’ interests. The Board’s approach in LA Produce is likely to please businesses and their advocates, as it gives greater weight to the business reality and the business justification for an employer’s work rules, policies, and handbook provisions.

In Amnesty International of the USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 112 (2019), a number of paid staff of the nonprofit advocacy group joined a petition circulated by Amnesty’s unpaid interns, seeking compensation of their volunteer work.  In response to the petition, the director of the organization made statements that she was “disappointed” that the signers of the petitioners had not availed themselves of the organization’s open door policy to discuss the matter with her and the executive team before signing the petition, and that she did not think the petition was “appropriate” as it was “litigious” and “adversarial.”

As we have previously reported here and here, courts and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) have released a number of recent decisions favoring the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the employment context.

It is now settled law that class-action waivers in arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) or infringe on employees’ Section 7 rights under the Act.  In a recent decision, the NLRB extended this holding to allow employers to implement arbitration programs—including those with class-action waivers—in direct response to litigation by its employees.

This summer, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued several pro-employer decisions.  Just last month, the NLRB issued two key decisions for employers, which are discussed below.

Worker Misclassification Not a Violation of the NLRA

 As we previously reported, the Board previously invited interested parties and amici to submit briefs in the case of Velox Express, Inc. (15-CA-184006) to address under what circumstances, if any, the Board should deem an employer’s misclassifying statutory employees as independent contractors as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

On September 20, 2019, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude undergraduate and graduate students who perform paid work for private colleges and universities in connection with their studies from the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act.  The proposed rule would prevent undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants from unionizing or collectively organizing.

On September 3, 2019, in First Student, Inc. v. NLRB, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. 2019), the court upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s application of the “perfectly clear” doctrine in First Student Inc. v. NLRB, 366 NLRB No. 13 (February 6, 2018).  The “perfectly clear” doctrine affects the right of a labor law successor, which acquires a unionized business, to set new terms and conditions of employment.  Thus, it can have an important impact on the economics of the commercial transaction.

A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board is another in a string of decisions where the Trump-appointed Board has attempted to rebalance a property owner’s rights with the rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act of those individuals who work on the property. In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center for the Performing Arts, 368 NLRB No. 46 (2019), the Board overruled its previous precedent and held that a property owner may prohibit Section 7 activity by off-duty employees of a licensee or contractor performing work on the property owner’s premises.

In Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued its first major decision following the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Epic Systems, addressing a number of issues of first impression and providing guidance on the permissible scope and implementation of class action waivers.  

 In Cordúa, a group of employees had filed a collective action under the FLSA.  In response, the employer promulgated and maintained a revised arbitration agreement, requiring employees to agree not to opt in to class or collective actions.  In distributing the revised agreement, the employer explained that employees would be removed from the work schedule if they declined to sign it.  In addition, another employee was discharged for filing a class action wage lawsuit against the employer and discussing wage issues with his fellow employees.

The EEOC recently published guidance under its FAQ page regarding the question of how to report nonbinary gender employees on the annual EEO-1 report.  The EEO-1 report is a yearly survey that employers must complete and submit to the agency which requires the employer to identify characteristics of its workforce such as race/ethnicity and sex.  This survey does not allow the employer or the affected employee to abstain from responding, which creates difficult decisions for the employer who must fill-in-the-blank when an employee declines to self-identify.

The National Labor Relations Board has issued the first part of its planned series of revisions to labor union election procedures.  The revisions arrive five years after the Obama-era Board’s controversial 2014 changes that created the so-called “ambush election” procedures.

On August 12, a three-member majority, over a one-member dissent, issued a 113-page proposed rule that would modify three of the Board’s election processes: (1) its handling of “blocking charges,” (2) the restriction on elections after an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union, and (3) the standard for contractually-negotiated recognition of a union in the construction industry.

As California braces for wildfire season, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“CalOSHA”) approved an emergency regulation on July 30, 2019, that requires California employers to monitor air quality for particle pollution, and reduce workers exposure to the potential harmful pollutants from wildfire smoke.

What Is Particle Pollution or Particle Matter?

The Air Quality Index (“AQI”) is calculated for four major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground level ozone, particle pollution, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. The new regulation is aimed at protecting workers from certain particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM. There are two types of PM – fine particles (2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, referred to as PM2.5) and course particles (particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter, referred to as PM10). The new regulation is directed only at the fine particles, or PM2.5, which are produced from all types of combustion, including wildfires. 

In Johnson Controls, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 20 (July 3, 2019),  the NLRB adopted a new framework for determining a union’s representative status once an employer has made a lawful anticipatory withdrawal of recognition based on disaffection evidence that the union has lost its majority status. Specifically, under Johnson Controls, a union seeking to demonstrate that it has reacquired majority status must do so in a secret ballot election conducted by the Board, rather than in an unfair labor practice proceeding.

Last month, the National Labor Relations Board held that employers do not have to allow non-employees to use their cafeterias or similar public spaces for promotional or organizational activities.  See UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, 368 NLRB No. 2 (June 14, 2019) (“UPMC”).  In so holding, the Board overruled decades-old precedent.

UPMC specifically involved “public spaces,” a sometimes-gray area in union organizing.  Public spaces are somewhat-private areas on employer property that are also open to the public, such as employee cafeterias or snack bars, as compared to fully-public areas such as retail floors.

The Board’s recent decision in Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp., 367 NLRB No. 122 (May 7, 2019)  highlights the differences that can arise as a result of the collective bargaining process in the terms and conditions of employment for employers with a divided workforce of non-union and union-represented employees.

In Merck, the Board majority reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the employer had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by offering a new, one-time paid holiday, “Appreciation Day” to all of its non-union employees to the exclusion of its union-represented employees.

Here are some factual background and key points of the NLRB’s decision in Merck:

We previously posted on the unfortunate ruling in March 2019, when a Federal Court reinstituted the “Component 2” wage reporting in the annual EEO-1 Report.  The highly controversial requirement – that employers annually report, to the government, W-2 earnings and hours worked for all employees – had been proposed in 2016, but stayed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2017.

In a recent advice memorandum, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) set forth its position that drivers for the rideshare company Uber are independent contractors, not employees, for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  This means that the Board, as it is currently comprised, will not entertain efforts of drivers to unionize or seek other protections under the NLRA.  Because it is only a directive from the Board’s General Counsel, as opposed to a decision by the five-member Board, the advice memorandum is not appealable to a federal appellate court, and those who oppose the Board’s position will not have judicial recourse.  The Board’s advice memorandum comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s recent opinion letter stating that workers for a “virtual marketplace company that operates in the so-called ‘on-demand’ or ‘sharing’ economy” are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and thus not covered by the law’s minimum wage and overtime requirements.

On May 13, 2019, in Outokumpo Stainless USA, LLC v. N.L.R.B., No. 17-15498 (11th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit enforced an NLRB order finding that stainless steel producer Outokumpo’s posting of a side letter along with a NLRB settlement notice “constituted non-compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement” and that “default judgment was thus proper under the plain terms to which the Company had previously agreed.”

Businesses with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees must annually file an EEO-1 Private Sector Report disclosing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the number of women and minorities they employ by job category, race, sex and ethnicity.  Covered employers have been providing this traditional race-ethnicity and sex data (referred to as “Component 1 data”) to the Commission for over half a century.  The EEOC uses it to analyze employment patterns and support civil rights enforcement.

Many workplace policies and employee handbooks contain restrictions on employees speaking to the media.  Through these policies, employers often seek to limit what organizational information is disclosed to third parties, and to exercise at least some control over statements that may be attributed to the company.  Such restrictions, though, may be found to violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) due to overbreadth when not drafted carefully.  And, while the National Labor Relations Board in the Trump era has seemed willing to revisit pro-worker rulings, the General Counsel last month released an Advice Memorandum affirming this long-standing precedent.

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board reversed decades of precedent regarding a successor employer’s bargaining obligations following the asset purchase of an entity with a unionized workforce.

In a 3-1 decision released last week, the National Labor Relations Board reversed decades of precedent regarding a successor employer’s bargaining obligations following the purchase of an entity with a unionized workforce. The Board’s decision in Ridgewood Health Care Center significantly reined in the application of the “perfectly clear successor” doctrine, which requires a successor employer to maintain the status quo of its predecessor employer’s terms and conditions of employment.

Last August, we reported on OSHA’s proposed rulemaking regarding electronic submissions of workplace injuries and illnesses in our blog entitled, “OSHA Issues Proposed Rule Regarding Electronic Submission Requirements.” OSHA has since issued a final rule which became effective on February 25, 2019.

The new rule rescinds the requirement that employers with 250 or more employees, or employers in certain high-hazard industries, electronically submit information from OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries or Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report).  Affected employers must still maintain Forms 300 and 301 on-site and make them available for OSHA inspection, if requested.  Employers covered by the rule now only are obligated to submit Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) annually.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the EEOC reconvened its task force on sexual harassment in June 2018.  Most recently, in a continued effort  to focus on leading harassment prevention efforts, the EEOC organized the “Industry Leaders Roundtable Discussion on Harassment Prevention.” On March 20, 2019, the EEOC held a roundtable discussion with various industry leaders to strategize regarding effective harassment prevention efforts and to “inform strategies for the next generation of issues flowing” from the EEOC’s task force reports and the #MeToo movement. Top tier representatives from national associations of homebuilders, manufacturers, human resources, retailers, hospitality providers and others attended and offered their perspectives.

On March 12, 2019, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to enforce a bargaining order against the University of Southern California (“USC”), finding that part of the order “runs afoul” with Supreme Court precedent, NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 (1980).

The case is Univ. of S. Cal. v. NLRB, Nos. 17-1149, 17-1171, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7203 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 12, 2019) and involves managerial versus non-managerial employees.  Though specific to the academic context, it represents a significant addition to Yeshiva and NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974), where the Supreme Court held that “managerial employees” are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

Employers breathed a collective sigh of relief in August 2017, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced it was staying the requirement that employers report W-2 wage information in the annual EEO-1 Report.   Now, though, the reprieve seems over.  On March 4, 2019, the District of Columbia Federal Court ruled that OMB improperly issued the stay without good cause, and put the wage report back into effect.  See National Women’s Law Center v OMB, No. 1:17-cv-2458 (D.D.C.  March 4, 2019).

As anticipated and previously reported, the Republican-controlled Board is overturning Obama-era rulings. For example, in a recent decision, SuperShuttle Inc. DFW, Inc. (16-RC-010963), the National Labor Relations Board affirmed the Board’s adherence to the traditional common-law agency test.  This decision overrules the NLRB’s 2014 Decision, FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB No. 65, which had modified the NLRB’s long-standing test for independent contractor status.

The National Labor Relations Board’s current joint employer standard received a mixed review from a federal circuit court late last month, providing some guidance on how courts may evaluate the Board’s ongoing rulemaking efforts.

The Federal government has entered its 12^th day of partial shutdown, making it the fourth longest in American history to date.   But, not all government departments are affected, and the Department of Labor is one that is not.  The DOL is already fully funded for 2019, so the current stalemate between Congress and the President does not affect its resources.

Before the lame duck period of the 115^th Congress, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and a group of 58 Democrat co-sponsors, introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 7109), which would prohibit  employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) approved and released its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2019-2022. Congress requires government agencies like the NLRB to formulate strategic plans every four years and release those plans to the public. These plans must include general goals and objectives of the agency and a description of how those goals will be achieved. This iteration of the NLRB’s Strategic Plan largely focuses on the agency’s goals to reduce the processing time for unfair labor practice charges and representation cases, acknowledging the problem that “[o]ver the years, the amount of time it takes for cases to be processed and for resolutions to be reached has increased and backlogs of cases have developed. This initiative has been developed to reverse these trends.”

It’s now officially public: under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB)  General Counsel Peter B. Robb, unions may face greater scrutiny and a higher burden in defending against claims that they violated the duty of fair representation.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions owe this duty to its members and can be liable under Section 8(b)(1)(A) if they represent them arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

A memorandum recently released by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has clarified the agency’s position on whether safety incentive programs and post-accident drug testing would be considered retaliatory pursuant to its controversial recordkeeping rule published on May 12, 2016.  This rule prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report work-related injuries or instituting procedures that could chill employees from reporting work-related injuries. In the accompanying interpretative documents, OSHA specifically identified workplace safety incentive programs and post-accident drug testing policies as procedures that were likely to deter employee reporting, and therefore would be subject to increased scrutiny by the agency.

The EEOC recently released a report highlighting the Commission’s efforts to combat sexual harassment in the past year.  The report, which includes preliminary data for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2018, illustrates that the Commission has been, in the EEOC’s words, “vigorously enforcing the law” in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

The NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel recently issued an internal directive regarding the manner in which NLRB Regions prosecute duty of fair representation charges against unions.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions have a duty of fair representation to the members of the bargaining unit it represents by engaging in conduct that is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, particularly with regard to the processing of worker grievances.  Board law has established (and unions typically offer as a defense) that “mere negligence” alone does not amount to arbitrary conduct that would serve to breach the duty of fair representation.

Hunton Andrews Kurth special counsel and former NLRB general counsel Ronald Meisburg recently wrote an article, “Navigating NLRB: Attacking Instability With APA Rulemaking”, as part of Law360’s Expert Analysis series.  

The OFCCP vowed things would change after President Trump’s election.  It is making good on that promise.  The Agency issued three new Directives in the last two weeks, following four others earlier this year.  One of these Directives was long-awaited new guidance on pay analyses, replacing Directive 307.  And, the OFCCP has a new Acting Director, Craig Leen (see our earlier post for the exciting news about the immediate-past Director, Ondray Harris, joining our firm).

The good news for contractors is that the OFCCP’s actions are almost all pro-business, aimed at making the Agency more transparent, objective, and efficient.

In May 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued a final rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, “ which requires employers to electronically submit their injury and illness records to OSHA.  Specifically, establishments with 250 or more employees must annually submit their Forms 300, 300A, and 301.  And, establishments with 20 to 249 employees must annually submit their Form 300A.  Prior to this rule, most employers had no obligation to submit their illness/injury logs to OSHA.  This rule has been controversial, as OSHA intends to post the records, subjecting employers to increased scrutiny by investors, business partners, regulators, and the public at large.  Moreover, many employers are skeptical that OSHA will appropriately safeguard individualized confidential information from public disclosure.

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has taken the first step to potentially reshape labor law since the May 21, 2018 Epic Systems case, in which the Supreme Court held that class waivers in arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).

On August 15, 2018, the Board vacated its decision and order in Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 72 (April 26, 2018), where a three-member panel of the Board held that an employee engaged in concerted, protected activity by filing a class action wage lawsuit against his employer.

The Board’s recent vacating of this order is noteworthy for two reasons.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a decision that serves as a reminder to employers of their bargaining obligations upon implementing changes to their business.  Rigid Pak Corp., 366 NLRB No. 137 (2018) involves a unionized company (“Rigid”) that manufactured and sold plastic products.  Rigid maintained an injection-molding division and a blow-molding division housed on different sides of its facility.  The injection-molding division manufactured open-head containers, lids, and crates while the blow-molding division manufactured plastic bottles.  In 2014, Rigid encountered various financial difficulties, and to address them, the company entered into a supply agreement to outsource its work to a third-party manufacturer.

On July 18, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Labor-Management Standards issued a final rule rescinding the so-called “persuader rule,” a controversial Obama-era regulation requiring employers to disclose advice received regarding opposition to union efforts.

Many in the labor community are familiar with the Machinists Union’s long running effort to unionize Boeing’s South Carolina-based 787 Dreamliner manufacturing facility.  After failing in two previous attempts to organize the entire facility, the Union recently won a bid to organize a “micro-unit” limited to a group of flight line technicians and inspectors.  The Regional Director’s decision to approve the Union’s proposed bargaining unit took most labor practitioners by surprise, given the NLRB’s recent decision in PCC Structurals overturning the ...

As we reported last December, the NLRB, in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), reversed its workplace rule standard under Lutheran Heritage.  Specifically, instead of assessing whether an employee could “reasonably construe” a workplace rule as barring the exercise of rights under the NLRA, the new test will evaluate the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights and the legitimate justifications associated with the rule.  The results of the new balancing test will place the rule in one of three categories: Category 1 (lawful work rules), Category 2 (work rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case), or Category 3 (unlawful work rules).

In a major win for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements with class action waivers do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The Court’s narrow 5-4 decision paves the way for employers to include such waivers in arbitration agreements to avoid class and collective actions.

The saga continues with regards to the status of a December 2017 NLRB decision that loosened restrictions on employer workplace rules.  As we reported, on December 14, 2017, the NLRB overruled the “reasonably construe” standard for evaluating the validity of employer work rules and replaced it with an evaluation that balances 1) the nature and extent of a rule’s impact on NLRA rights and 2) an employer’s legitimate justifications for the rule.  The new standard is widely-perceived as a victory for employers and indicated the newly-composed NLRB’s intent to revise the law in situations where the previous administration had stretched key legal principles too far, turning the “reasonably construe” standard into a “possibly construe” standard.

Recently, the NLRB created significant uncertainty as to the joint employer test under the NLRA when it vacated a December 2017 decision that resurrected the standard that existed prior to 2015.  Such a standard determines the existence of a joint employer relationship by assessing whether one entity has “actually exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having ‘reserved’ the right to exercise control)” and the control is “’direct and immediate’ (rather than indirect)” and exercised in a manner that is not “limited and routine.”

On April 16, newly confirmed member John Ring was sworn in as the fifth member and Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, establishing a Republican-controlled Board.   While all has been relatively quiet with regard to rulings from the Board,  we will likely see a rise in activity now that the NLRB (with a  newly-minted majority) is poised to roll back some of the Obama-era rulings.

Federal contractors have been closely following leadership changes at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).   Most notably, President Trump appointed Ondray T. Harris as OFCCP Director, and Craig Leen as Senior Advisor to the OFCCP.   Both men have backgrounds in management-side private law practice.  This has contractors hopeful they may bring fresh eyes and a more pragmatic approach to the OFCCP.

The National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) and McDonald’s Corp. have reached a settlement agreement in the long-running employment retaliation case brought against McDonald’s that hinges on whether McDonald's Corp., as a franchisor, has enough control over its franchisees to be considered a "joint employer" of the franchisees’ employees.  The case stems from allegations that McDonald’s unlawfully retaliated against franchisee workers who joined the “Fight for $15” movement.  In bringing this case against McDonald’s, the NLRB has argued that even having only “indirect control” over a worker is enough for a franchisor like McDonald’s to be held liable for the employment practices of its franchisees.   The NLRB’s case against McDonald’s was bolstered by the Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which departed from decades of legal precedent in holding that entities who merely possessed—as opposed to directly and immediately exercised—control over workers could be deemed joint employers for purposes of assessing liability under the National Labor Relations Act.

Recently the National Labor Relations Board invited interested parties and amici to submit briefs in Velox Express, Inc. (15-CA-184006) to address under what circumstances, if any, the Board should deem an employer’s misclassifying statutory employees as independent contractors constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).  Briefs from parties and interested amici must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.

The National Labor Relations Board continues to undo its actions overruling the joint employer test of Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).  Earlier this week the Board vacated its decision in Hy-Brand Industries, the case which had overruled Browning-Ferris.

Shortly after the original Hy-Brand decision, the Board had asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to remand the Browning-Ferris case to the Board.  At the time, the Browning-Ferris case was pending before the court of appeals on the Board’s petition for enforcement and Browning-Ferris’s petition for review, and had been fully briefed and argued.

This week the LGBT community and its supporters won an important case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  In Zarda v. Altitude Express, the Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination extends to same-sex, or “anti-gay,” discrimination.  In that case, Donald Zarda, a gay skydiving instructor, alleged he was unlawfully fired after a customer complained about him disclosing his same-sex orientation.