Barring a last minute surprise (and this writer is not betting on anything), the National Labor Relations Board’s new union representation case rules will take effect April 14.
“Guidance” That Does Not Guide: NLRB General Counsel Issues Interpretations of Common Employee Handbook Policies
We have not exactly been shy in expressing concern regarding many of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) recent actions, nor hesitant to opine that its actions appear purposefully designed to advantage unions and create expansive new employee rights from the language of the 80-year-old National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).
Spring is often a time for some cleaning, and a new report from the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) should provide you an additional incentive to clean up your employee handbook.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel released a report on recent case developments on March 18 involving employee handbook conduct restrictions.
The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently published a guidance memorandum that provides specific examples of lawful and unlawful employee handbook rules in the areas of confidentiality, professionalism and employee conduct, use of company logos, copyrights and trademarks, conflicts of interest, photography and recording, and interaction with the media and other third parties.
This week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade groups filed a Motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie election” rules should be invalidated.
As we have previously reported, the National Labor Relations Board in recent years has put employee handbooks and policy manuals under a magnifying glass, searching for any provision that might, in its view, violate the National Labor Relations Act.
NLRB Expands Scope of Union Representatives’ Permissible Conduct During Investigatory Interviews Under Weingarten
In a 2-to-1 decision, a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board has held it was unlawful for an employer to threaten a union steward with suspension for showing an employee, during the employer’s investigative interview about a violation of company procedure, the steward’s answer to a question asked by the interviewer, which was written in the steward’s notebook, so that the employee could read it to the interviewer.
The latest office fodder for me and my colleague, Jason Usher (who formerly worked at the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”)), involves an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, Valley Health System LLC, that found that a healthcare employer’s English-only rule violated the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).