Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Each year, the California Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) identifies proposed state legislation that the Chamber believes “will decimate economic and job growth in California.”  The Chamber refers to these bills as “Job Killers.” In March, the Chamber identified the first two Job Killers of 2019: AB 51 and SB 1. Both bills would negatively impact retailers in California. You can view the Chamber’s Job Killer site here.

Continue Reading

Gender Pay Transparency Act Vetoed.  On Sunday, October 15, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the California Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, AB 1209, a proposed law that would have required (1) large employers in California to collect and disclose data on how they’re paying men and women differently, and (2) the California Secretary of State to publicly post the data on a state government website.  The proposal – previously deemed a “job killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce, and characterized as the “public shaming of California employers” bill by many – was strongly opposed by the business community.  The Governor expressed concern about the proposal’s ambiguous language and expressed concern that  the ambiguity “could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.”

In a brief filed on September 7, 2016 (“NLRB Brief”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) urged the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to uphold its new “joint employer” standard, set forth in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015). Through this new standard, the Board now seeks to impose collective bargaining and other NLRA obligations on companies that may indirectly control certain conditions of employment, or that merely reserve (but do not exercise) such control.  Casting aside the more precise “direct and immediate control” standard it explicitly adopted in 1984, the Board in Browning-Ferris opted instead to analyze joint control issues on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis, with a greater focus on reserved and indirect control.  The case on appeal is entitled Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a/ Browning-Ferris Newby Island Recyclery v. National Labor Relations Board,  Nos. 16-1028, 16-1063 and 16-1064.

A concerned business community has closely followed the NLRB’s shifting views on the concept of “joint employers” - separate companies that are deemed to be so interconnected that they should be treated as one for purposes of labor relations activity and unfair labor practice liability. In August of last year, the NLRB decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015), put into place a broad new test that dramatically expands the definition of “joint employer.” Now, an entity will be found to be a joint employer if it exercises only indirect control over the employment terms and conditions of another company’s employees. Indeed, joint employer status can be established if a company simply possesses, but never exercises, the ability to control such terms.

As previously reported, the EEOC announced on January 29, 2016 its proposal to require businesses with 100 or more employees to annually turn over pay data by gender, race and ethnicity.   The public has until April 1, 2016 to submit comments on the proposal.  Both the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have issued statements that the proposed requirements would be overly burdensome for employers and would result in the collection of data that would fail to provide any meaningful insights as to whether employer pay practices are discriminatory.  ...

On Friday October 2, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1506 into law, amending California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) to provide an employer the right to cure certain technical violations of the California Wage Statement Law (Labor Code § 226) before the employer can be sued.  The law sets forth specific steps that must be taken before a technical violation can be cured.

On July 29, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) had authority to adopt its new “ambush election” rules. These new rules, which became effective on April 14, 2015, made dramatic changes to the NLRB’s traditional rules governing union representation elections. The rules shortened the length of representation elections from approximately 40 days to as short as 11 days. In addition, the rule prevents employers from legally challenging an election until after its workers have voted. Business groups across the country have now begun the process of challenging these rules in federal courts. As we previously reported, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has already dismissed one set of petitioners’ challenges and upheld the ambush election rules. However, on August 10, the petitioners filed an appeal asking the Fifth Circuit to overturn the decision.

On September 28, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1897, a bill that extends liability for workers supplied by “labor contractors” to the contracting employer. The new law provides that a “client employer,” defined as a business entity that obtains or is provided workers to perform labor within its usual course of business from a labor contractor, will share responsibility and liability with the labor contractor for payment of wages and failure to secure valid workers’ compensation coverage. The definition of “client employer” excludes businesses with a workforce of fewer than 25 workers (including both employees and temp hires) and those with 5 or fewer temp workers at any given time. The law also includes an anti-retaliation provision.

On Monday, January 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced that it declined to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of two adverse rulings concerning its rule requiring employers to display posters informing employees of their right to unionize.  Under the rule, an employer’s failure to display the poster would have constituted an unfair labor practice.

We reported last week that the NLRB's new "ambush election rule," as it is called by some critics, is facing a federal court challenge from a coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The filing of that litigation has interfered with the Board's plans to implement its employer notice posting rule, issued earlier this year.  That rule -- which requires private-sector employers covered by the NLRA to post a notice that tells employees about their right to unionize, gives examples of unlawful employer and union conduct and tells employees how to contact the NLRB with questions and complaints -- has also been challenged in the Chamber's lawsuit.  The NLRB earlier had postponed implementation of the rule until January 31, 2012.  The judge, however, recently told the parties to the suit that she did not think the Board's January deadline would allow them sufficient time to argue the merits of the rule.

On December 20, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) finalized what is being referred to by some critics as the “ambush election rule,” following its contentious November 30, 2011 2-1 vote in favor of its proposed revisions to the procedures by which it conducts workplace elections to determine whether employees do or do not wish to unionize.

On May 21st, we reported on the newly-announced Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposal to narrow the “advice exception” to the reporting requirements of section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”).  In a nutshell, section 203 requires employers to annually report any arrangement with a third-party consultant to persuade employees as to their rights to organize and bargain collectively or to obtain certain information concerning the activities of employees or a labor organization involved in a labor dispute with the employer.  The “advice exception” of section 203(c) provides that no annual report need be filed when a consultant gives “advice” to the employer.  DOL’s current policy is to construe this exception broadly to exclude arrangements where the consultant has no direct contact with employees, but DOL now views this policy as overbroad and seeks to narrow it through rulemaking, as outlined in its Spring 2010 Regulatory Agenda.

In a move sure to draw fire from Republican lawmakers and segments of the business community, President Obama on Saturday issued recess appointments to place controversial candidates on the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Presidents have constitutional authority to fill vacancies without the advice and consent of the Senate when Congress is in recess, as it is now.

The Obama Administration recently proposed requirements to ensure that U.S. companies keep more extensive records of repetitive stress and other types of workplace injuries.  This is one of several signs that employers will face more regulation related to “ergonomics,” or the design and functioning of work spaces, equipment, and tasks in such a manner as to avoid such injuries.