National Labor Relations Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015), will have significant and far-reaching effects as it greatly expands the scope of relationships in which the Board can and will find entities to be joint employers.
My colleague Wynter Deagle recently wrote a post on Privacy & Security Matters discussing some implications and lessons from the recent Ashley Madison hack and data dump.
Most cases, when they settle, contain a provision that the plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed “with prejudice.”
The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has issued its long-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (pdf), establishing a new test for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).
Citing “changing economic circumstances, particularly the recent dramatic growth in contingent employment relationships,” in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (August 27, 2015), a 3-2 National Labor Relations Board majority (Pearce, Hirozawa, McFerran) significantly revised and broadened the standard for assessing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently intensified its scrutiny of the health care and nursing care industries.
It is vital that all employers investigate internal complaints that may be covered under a variety of laws, including EEO laws (for example, Title VII, ADA, ADEA, and state EEO laws), whistleblower laws such as, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd Frank (and state whistleblower laws), OSHA, the False Claims Act, and the NLRA.
In a decision issued on February 6, 2015 the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, Region 2, dismissed a petition for union representation with The New School filed by a putative labor organization, Student Employees at The New School (SENS), which is affiliated with the UAW.
If you advise employers, then you’re probably used to giving advice that derives more from good HR practices than from what the law requires.