Employers in union settings know that they generally cannot make changes to their employees’ wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment without first negotiating to impasse with the union.
Overruling Precedent, Board Finds Violation May Be Established Without Specific Unfair Labor Practice Complaint Allegation
In a decision having far-reaching implications, a National Labor Relations Board panel consisting of Chairman Mark Gaston Pierce and Members Kent Hirozawa and Lauren McFerran, (Member Miscimarra dissented) has overruled almost 10 years of NLRB precedent, deciding that a violation of the National Labor Relations Act could be found based on an employer’s failure to inform the union that it did not possess information the union requested, despite the absence of a specific unfair labor practice complaint allegation to that effect.
An Administrative Law Judge held that an employer’s policy of prohibiting employees from conducting personal business at work, along with its social media and solicitation/distribution policies, violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
NLRB’s Latest “Perfectly Clear” Successor Decision Creates Pitfalls for Buyers of Unionized Operations
On July 18, 2016, the Board issued a split decision (Member Miscimarra dissenting) in Nexeo Solutions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 44, in which it found that the buyer, Nexeo, was a “perfectly clear” successor of the seller’s unionized employees thereby precluding it from being able to set initial terms and conditions of employment unilaterally.
On July 15, 2016, the Board issued its decision in Hospital of Barstow, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 52, on remand from the D.C. Circuit (Hospital of Bartow, Inc. v. NLRB, 820 F.3d 440), addressing the issue of whether the Regional Director retained authority, despite the Board’s lack of a quorum in 2012 and 2013, to certify the union after an election held pursuant to a consent election agreement.
On July 11, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or “the Board”) upended more than a decade of precedent and held that a single bargaining unit may be comprised of an employer’s direct hires and the temporary workers provided by a “joint employer” without prior consent from either employer.
The Labor Board Wants Those “Temp” Workers to Be “Your” Workers So That You Can Become a Union Company
As I was explaining to a client last week that just “sending her back to the temp agency” likely would not be a simple end to a complicated sexual harassment problem, the National Labor Relations Board issued yet another decision impacting joint-employer issues.
A union’s gift of free hams on the eve of an NLRB-conducted election did not influence the outcome, a union victory, the National Labor Relations Board has determined.
Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board issued a memorandum announcing the steps it will take to report complaints alleged against federal contractor employers in order to comply with the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 13673.
The NLRB recently reversed course again to allow temporary employees provided by a staffing agency to join regular employees in a single bargaining unit without the consent of the employer or the staffing agency.