Lexology
Baker & Hostetler LLP
Ellen J. Shadur
USA
March 27 2012
The Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") has now released two reports compiling Board decisions addressing work-related communications by non-supervisory or managerial employees via the Internet or social media. While it is impossible to discern the full contours of the Board's approach, there are some clear lessons that can be learned.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f128bcbf-a580-4eb0-9df8-c69dd052021b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-03-30&utm_term=
Showing posts with label NLRB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NLRB. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Mandatory employee arbitration agreements: the NLRB throws a wrench into their enforceability
Lexology.com
Epstein Becker Green
Forrest G. Read, IV
USA
February 10 2012
Arbitration agreements can be an effective way for employers in the hospitality industry to streamline and isolate an employee’s potential claims on an individual basis and protect themselves from a proliferation of lawsuits with many plaintiffs or claimants. But the National Labor Relations Board’s (“Board”) January 6, 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, notably finalized by two Board Members on departing Member Craig Becker’s final day, has caused significant confusion as to how employers can enforce such arbitration agreements with their employees over employment claims, including wage and hour disputes.
In D.R. Horton, the Board concluded that an employer commits an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it requires, as a condition of employment, its employees to sign an arbitration agreement that precludes them from filing, in any forum, any class or collective claims addressing their wages, hours or other working conditions against the employer. However, the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton appears to be inconsistent with, if not directly contradicts, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of class action waiver provisions in consumer arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, which many employers and members of the labor and employment bar interpreted as extending to waiver provisions in employment-related agreements.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36986c79-010f-4346-8731-44e878921104&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-02-16&utm_term=
Epstein Becker Green
Forrest G. Read, IV
USA
February 10 2012
Arbitration agreements can be an effective way for employers in the hospitality industry to streamline and isolate an employee’s potential claims on an individual basis and protect themselves from a proliferation of lawsuits with many plaintiffs or claimants. But the National Labor Relations Board’s (“Board”) January 6, 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, notably finalized by two Board Members on departing Member Craig Becker’s final day, has caused significant confusion as to how employers can enforce such arbitration agreements with their employees over employment claims, including wage and hour disputes.
In D.R. Horton, the Board concluded that an employer commits an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it requires, as a condition of employment, its employees to sign an arbitration agreement that precludes them from filing, in any forum, any class or collective claims addressing their wages, hours or other working conditions against the employer. However, the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton appears to be inconsistent with, if not directly contradicts, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of class action waiver provisions in consumer arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, which many employers and members of the labor and employment bar interpreted as extending to waiver provisions in employment-related agreements.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36986c79-010f-4346-8731-44e878921104&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-02-16&utm_term=
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
NLRB postpones date employers must post NLRA rights poster
Lexology.com
Fox Rothschild LLP
Matthew R. Porio and Brian A. Caufield
USA
On December 23, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) agreed to postpone the date employers nationwide are to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act from Jan. 30, 2012, to April 30, 3012. This decision was at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC, that is currently hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=49b1eb8a-c262-46f1-8729-57228523a60d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-01-17&utm_term=
Fox Rothschild LLP
Matthew R. Porio and Brian A. Caufield
USA
On December 23, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) agreed to postpone the date employers nationwide are to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act from Jan. 30, 2012, to April 30, 3012. This decision was at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC, that is currently hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=49b1eb8a-c262-46f1-8729-57228523a60d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-01-17&utm_term=
Monday, October 10, 2011
Legal issues surrounding social media background checks
Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin
Michelle Sherman
October 3, 2011
Agatha Christie had a novel take on invention being the mother of necessity. She disagreed and said, “[I]nvention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble.” She may have been onto something when you think about businesses that are turning to outside vendors to research employees and job candidates for them. Whether or not these outside vendors are the best solution, however, remains to be seen.
1. Companies Should Have An Internal Procedure For Researching Job Candidates And Employees On The Internet
We recommended earlier this year that businesses establish an internal procedure for making employment decisions based on Internet research, so they would not run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit job discrimination based on protected factors. The protected factors include, for example: (1) Race, color, national origin, religion and gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) Sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, cancer, political affiliation, genetic characteristics, and gender identity under California law. Most states have their own list of protected factors, which should be considered depending on where your company has employees
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fb2eeb9c-f317-4d93-811e-f0b38c60f915
Sheppard Mullin
Michelle Sherman
October 3, 2011
Agatha Christie had a novel take on invention being the mother of necessity. She disagreed and said, “[I]nvention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble.” She may have been onto something when you think about businesses that are turning to outside vendors to research employees and job candidates for them. Whether or not these outside vendors are the best solution, however, remains to be seen.
1. Companies Should Have An Internal Procedure For Researching Job Candidates And Employees On The Internet
We recommended earlier this year that businesses establish an internal procedure for making employment decisions based on Internet research, so they would not run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit job discrimination based on protected factors. The protected factors include, for example: (1) Race, color, national origin, religion and gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) Sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, cancer, political affiliation, genetic characteristics, and gender identity under California law. Most states have their own list of protected factors, which should be considered depending on where your company has employees
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fb2eeb9c-f317-4d93-811e-f0b38c60f915
NLRB delays until January 31, 2012 new rule requiring you to advise your employees of their right to unionize
Lexology.com
Neal Gerber and Eisenberg LLP
Howard L. Bernstein
October 6, 2011
On Oct. 5, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) postponed the effective date of its highly controversial new rule requiring private employers to inform their employees of their right to form and support a union. Failure to post the required notice alone constitutes a new unfair labor practice and can also hinder an employer’s ability to defend itself against other unfair labor practice charges. Employers now have until Jan. 31, 2012 to comply with the new rule. Please see our Aug. 29 management alert describing the new rule and its extensive posting requirements.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5a803de-f3ef-4d84-ba65-18b2d42732d2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-10&utm_term=
Neal Gerber and Eisenberg LLP
Howard L. Bernstein
October 6, 2011
On Oct. 5, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) postponed the effective date of its highly controversial new rule requiring private employers to inform their employees of their right to form and support a union. Failure to post the required notice alone constitutes a new unfair labor practice and can also hinder an employer’s ability to defend itself against other unfair labor practice charges. Employers now have until Jan. 31, 2012 to comply with the new rule. Please see our Aug. 29 management alert describing the new rule and its extensive posting requirements.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5a803de-f3ef-4d84-ba65-18b2d42732d2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-10&utm_term=
Posting of employee rights notice now required on Jan. 31; Board postpones deadline to allow for further education and outreach
The National Labor Relations Board
October 05, 2011
Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
202-273-1991
publicinfo@nlrb.gov [1]
www.nlrb.gov [2]
The National Labor Relations Board has postponed the implementation date for its new notice-posting rule by more than two months in order to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers, particularly those who operate small and medium sized businesses.
The new effective date of the rule is Jan. 31, 2012.
The decision to extend the rollout period followed queries from businesses and trade organizations indicating uncertainty about which businesses fall under the Board’s jurisdiction, and was made in the interest of ensuring broad voluntary compliance. No other changes in the rule, or in the form or content of the notice, will be made.
Member Brian E. Hayes dissented [4] from the adoption of the final rule. For this reason, he agrees with any postponement of the effective date of the rule.
Most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice, which is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, either by downloading and printing or ordering a print by mail.
For further information about jurisdiction and posting requirements, please see our Frequently Asked Questions [5], which will be updated frequently as new questions arise. For questions that do not appear on the list, or to arrange for an NLRB presentation on the rule, please contact the agency at questions@nlrb.gov [6] or 866-667-NLRB.
https://www.nlrb.gov/news/posting-employee-rights-notice-now-required-jan-31-board-postpones-deadline-allow-further-educa
October 05, 2011
Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
202-273-1991
publicinfo@nlrb.gov [1]
www.nlrb.gov [2]
The National Labor Relations Board has postponed the implementation date for its new notice-posting rule by more than two months in order to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers, particularly those who operate small and medium sized businesses.
The new effective date of the rule is Jan. 31, 2012.
The decision to extend the rollout period followed queries from businesses and trade organizations indicating uncertainty about which businesses fall under the Board’s jurisdiction, and was made in the interest of ensuring broad voluntary compliance. No other changes in the rule, or in the form or content of the notice, will be made.
Member Brian E. Hayes dissented [4] from the adoption of the final rule. For this reason, he agrees with any postponement of the effective date of the rule.
Most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice, which is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, either by downloading and printing or ordering a print by mail.
For further information about jurisdiction and posting requirements, please see our Frequently Asked Questions [5], which will be updated frequently as new questions arise. For questions that do not appear on the list, or to arrange for an NLRB presentation on the rule, please contact the agency at questions@nlrb.gov [6] or 866-667-NLRB.
https://www.nlrb.gov/news/posting-employee-rights-notice-now-required-jan-31-board-postpones-deadline-allow-further-educa
Monday, September 19, 2011
Buffalo Nonprofit Violated Workers’ Rights in Facebook-Related Firings
Workforce Management
September 7, 2011
Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management.
The National Labor Relations Board said Sept. 7 that an NLRB judge has ruled a Buffalo, N.Y., nonprofit unlawfully discharged five employees after they posted comments on Facebook about their working conditions.
According to the Sept. 2 ruling, on Oct. 9, 2010—a Saturday and nonworking day for employees of Hispanics United of Buffalo—Mariana Cole-Rivera posted a message on her Facebook page from her personal computer that said, “Lydia Cruz, a coworker feels that we don’t help our clients at HUB (sic) I about had it! My fellow coworkers how do u feel?”
Several co-workers responded with comments expressing frustration with their job.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/buffalo-nonprofit-violated-workers-rights-facebook-related.php
September 7, 2011
Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management.
The National Labor Relations Board said Sept. 7 that an NLRB judge has ruled a Buffalo, N.Y., nonprofit unlawfully discharged five employees after they posted comments on Facebook about their working conditions.
According to the Sept. 2 ruling, on Oct. 9, 2010—a Saturday and nonworking day for employees of Hispanics United of Buffalo—Mariana Cole-Rivera posted a message on her Facebook page from her personal computer that said, “Lydia Cruz, a coworker feels that we don’t help our clients at HUB (sic) I about had it! My fellow coworkers how do u feel?”
Several co-workers responded with comments expressing frustration with their job.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/buffalo-nonprofit-violated-workers-rights-facebook-related.php
Monday, September 12, 2011
Labor and employment alert: NLRB publishes final rule for notification of employee rights
Lexology
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
R. Scott Brink
USA
August 31 2011
The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published in the Federal Register yesterday a Final Rule requiring most private-sector employers -- even if not unionized --to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by posting paper and, where applicable, electronic notices identifying those rights.
The Rule, which was highly controversial due to the perception of some employers that it is intended to unfairly foster union organizing, will take effect 75 days from today. Employers covered by the NLRA should begin posting the notice on November 14, 2011. Employers engaged in interstate commerce (which includes employers who buy, sell, or ship more than $50,000 of goods or services from out of state) typically fall within the jurisdiction of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9aa38f4-503a-475a-bf1c-09f71d2d3d52&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-07&utm_term=
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
R. Scott Brink
USA
August 31 2011
The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published in the Federal Register yesterday a Final Rule requiring most private-sector employers -- even if not unionized --to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by posting paper and, where applicable, electronic notices identifying those rights.
The Rule, which was highly controversial due to the perception of some employers that it is intended to unfairly foster union organizing, will take effect 75 days from today. Employers covered by the NLRA should begin posting the notice on November 14, 2011. Employers engaged in interstate commerce (which includes employers who buy, sell, or ship more than $50,000 of goods or services from out of state) typically fall within the jurisdiction of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9aa38f4-503a-475a-bf1c-09f71d2d3d52&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-07&utm_term=
Monday, April 25, 2011
First Facebook and now Twitter ... social media legal compliance challenges are no "LOL" matter!
Lexology.com
Foley & Lardner LLP
Scott Callen
USA
April 18 2011
Employees continue to file suits challenging company social media handbook policies and companies who discipline employee use of online tools like LinkedIn and Facebook. The New York Times recently reported, and various other media reports indicate, that absent a settlement, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to commence a legal proceeding challenging a company's social media policies and response (possible verbal reprimand) involving an employee's Twitter post related to the company's cooperation with union members.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a federal labor law that prohibits companies from violating a worker's federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions. The NLRB will commence legal proceedings claiming the company improperly restricted the employee's right to use Twitter to discuss working conditions with co-workers and implemented an unlawful social media policy that chilled employees' rights to discuss working conditions, which the NLRB will assert is a violation of Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dded1225-0d5a-4e58-a773-0420eec7a11e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-21&utm_term=
Foley & Lardner LLP
Scott Callen
USA
April 18 2011
Employees continue to file suits challenging company social media handbook policies and companies who discipline employee use of online tools like LinkedIn and Facebook. The New York Times recently reported, and various other media reports indicate, that absent a settlement, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to commence a legal proceeding challenging a company's social media policies and response (possible verbal reprimand) involving an employee's Twitter post related to the company's cooperation with union members.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a federal labor law that prohibits companies from violating a worker's federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions. The NLRB will commence legal proceedings claiming the company improperly restricted the employee's right to use Twitter to discuss working conditions with co-workers and implemented an unlawful social media policy that chilled employees' rights to discuss working conditions, which the NLRB will assert is a violation of Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dded1225-0d5a-4e58-a773-0420eec7a11e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-21&utm_term=
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Settlement Reached in Firing Over Facebook Post
Workforce Management
A Connecticut woman was fired in December 2009 after disagreements between her and her supervisor culminated in the woman’s posting of negative remarks about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page. By Jeff Casale
A settlement in the case involving an employee who was fired for posting negative comments about a supervisor on her Facebook page was made on Feb. 7, the eve of a scheduled hearing.
The National Labor Relations Board’s Hartford, Connecticut, regional office and American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc., worked out an agreement before a hearing regarding Dawnmarie Souza, a union worker for AMR’s New Haven office. She was fired in December 2009 after disagreements between her and her supervisor culminated in Souza’s posting of negative remarks about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/software-technology/settlement-reached-firing-over-facebook-post/index.php
A Connecticut woman was fired in December 2009 after disagreements between her and her supervisor culminated in the woman’s posting of negative remarks about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page. By Jeff Casale
A settlement in the case involving an employee who was fired for posting negative comments about a supervisor on her Facebook page was made on Feb. 7, the eve of a scheduled hearing.
The National Labor Relations Board’s Hartford, Connecticut, regional office and American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc., worked out an agreement before a hearing regarding Dawnmarie Souza, a union worker for AMR’s New Haven office. She was fired in December 2009 after disagreements between her and her supervisor culminated in Souza’s posting of negative remarks about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/software-technology/settlement-reached-firing-over-facebook-post/index.php
Monday, February 14, 2011
Workplace Guidance Remains Elusive After Facebook Posting Case Is Settled
Workforce.com
February 9, 2011
In the agreement, American Medical Response agreed to ‘revise its overly broad rules’ to ensure that employees’ rights to discuss working conditions are protected, according to a written statement by the NLRB.
Employees may be rejoicing, but some legal experts are disappointed that the National Labor Relations Board reached a settlement on Feb. 7 with a company that fired an employee for bad mouthing her boss on Facebook, dashing hopes for a legal precedent to guide employers’ social media policies.
Dawnmarie Souza, an emergency medical technician with ambulance service company American Medical Response of Connecticut, was fired in 2009 after criticizing her supervisor on Facebook. Her case was scheduled to be heard before a federal labor board judge in Hartford, Connecticut, on Feb. 8.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/workplace-guidance-remains-elusive-after-facebook-posting.php
February 9, 2011
In the agreement, American Medical Response agreed to ‘revise its overly broad rules’ to ensure that employees’ rights to discuss working conditions are protected, according to a written statement by the NLRB.
Employees may be rejoicing, but some legal experts are disappointed that the National Labor Relations Board reached a settlement on Feb. 7 with a company that fired an employee for bad mouthing her boss on Facebook, dashing hopes for a legal precedent to guide employers’ social media policies.
Dawnmarie Souza, an emergency medical technician with ambulance service company American Medical Response of Connecticut, was fired in 2009 after criticizing her supervisor on Facebook. Her case was scheduled to be heard before a federal labor board judge in Hartford, Connecticut, on Feb. 8.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/workplace-guidance-remains-elusive-after-facebook-posting.php
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post
The New York Times
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: November 8, 2010
In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.
This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=1&hp
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: November 8, 2010
In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.
This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=1&hp
Monday, April 12, 2010
Appointments signal new era in employment law enforcement
Lexology.com
Williams Mullen
David C. Burton, Heath H. Galloway
and J. Nelson Wilkinson USA
April 5 2010
Employers likely have not noticed a significant shift in the enforcement of labor and employment laws under the Obama administration. That is about to change. This month, the president announced recess appointments to fill 15 top spots at critical government agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). With the influx of leftleaning leadership at these key agencies, employers will face far harsher enforcement efforts and a markedly pro-union, pro-employee regulatory environment.
The Most Pro-Union Board in Memory
The most controversial recess appointment is of Craig Becker to the Board, the agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. Becker has served as attorney to the AFL-CIO and the SEIU; not surprisingly, he is strongly backed by unions and strongly opposed by employers. Opposition to Becker has centered on his public comments, notably his stated belief that employers “should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.” Becker is also a staunch supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act. Though this bill has stalled in Congress, employers fear Becker will attempt to effectively put the law in place through the Board’s decisions and rules. ...
Aggressive Anti-Discrimination Enforcement at a Rejuvenated EEOC
The EEOC is responsible for investigating charges of race, sex, age, disability and other types of workplace discrimination. Due largely to a lack of resources, the EEOC has been somewhat stagnant in recent years. As the economy went into its recessionary spiral, the EEOC languished under an enormous backlog of complaints brought on by the wave of lay-offs across the country. The Bush administration showed little inclination to invest in the kind of funding or staffing that would enable the EEOC to resume a forceful role in enforcing civil rights laws.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=671722c4-d9ee-44f6-bfa2-bb8f2f9755a6&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-04-12&utm_term=
Williams Mullen
David C. Burton, Heath H. Galloway
and J. Nelson Wilkinson USA
April 5 2010
Employers likely have not noticed a significant shift in the enforcement of labor and employment laws under the Obama administration. That is about to change. This month, the president announced recess appointments to fill 15 top spots at critical government agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). With the influx of leftleaning leadership at these key agencies, employers will face far harsher enforcement efforts and a markedly pro-union, pro-employee regulatory environment.
The Most Pro-Union Board in Memory
The most controversial recess appointment is of Craig Becker to the Board, the agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. Becker has served as attorney to the AFL-CIO and the SEIU; not surprisingly, he is strongly backed by unions and strongly opposed by employers. Opposition to Becker has centered on his public comments, notably his stated belief that employers “should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.” Becker is also a staunch supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act. Though this bill has stalled in Congress, employers fear Becker will attempt to effectively put the law in place through the Board’s decisions and rules. ...
Aggressive Anti-Discrimination Enforcement at a Rejuvenated EEOC
The EEOC is responsible for investigating charges of race, sex, age, disability and other types of workplace discrimination. Due largely to a lack of resources, the EEOC has been somewhat stagnant in recent years. As the economy went into its recessionary spiral, the EEOC languished under an enormous backlog of complaints brought on by the wave of lay-offs across the country. The Bush administration showed little inclination to invest in the kind of funding or staffing that would enable the EEOC to resume a forceful role in enforcing civil rights laws.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=671722c4-d9ee-44f6-bfa2-bb8f2f9755a6&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-04-12&utm_term=
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Continuing vacancies at enforcement agencies slow administration's agenda in labor and employment law
Lexology
Venable LLP
Rebecca H. Ormsbee and James Edward Fagan, III USA
February 22 2010
The Obama Administration’s attempts to fill vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have encountered serious opposition and setbacks, and this has led to corresponding delays in expected stepped-up enforcement efforts by these agencies. In particular, on February 9, 2010, U.S. Senate Democrats were unable to break a filibuster against the nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB. Two Democrats, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, in addition to thirty-one Republicans voted “nay” on the cloture motion. Mr. Becker was President Obama’s nominee to occupy one of three vacancies that the President currently has the opportunity to fill at the NLRB. The President has also offered up a second Democratic nominee, Mark Pearce, as well as a Republican, Brian Hayes, to fill the other two open posts. Mr. Becker’s nomination to fill one of the open NLRB spots was an especially controversial one, primarily due to Becker’s strong ties to organized labor and his work as a lawyer for both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). There remains the possibility, however, that President Obama will use a recess appointment to place Mr. Becker and his fellow nominees on the NLRB on a short term basis.
Meanwhile, the NLRB continues to operate with only two of its five allotted members in place, which has led to a series of court challenges asserting that the Board lacks the necessary quorum to decide cases. A split in the circuits has developed on this question, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition to decide the issue in the case of New Process Steel v. NLRB. A decision from the Court is expected this Spring.
Similar opposition and delay have left the EEOC in the same situation as the NLRB – only two of the Commission’s five allotted seats are currently filled. The President nominated Jacqueline Berrien as EEOC Chair, along with Chai Feldblum and Victoria Lipnic as Commissioners, but the Senate failed to confirm this package in 2009, and the nominations remain pending.
The net result of the delayed appointments at the NLRB and the EEOC is that anticipated significant changes in the enforcement of labor and employment regulations, once expected to take place in 2009, remain on hold for the time being. But the President will ultimately be able to name a majority of the members of both the NLRB and the EEOC, either through recess appointments or Senate confirmations, which will eventually bring about significant change in the enforcement efforts of both agencies. Employers should therefore remain alert to the agency appointment process and its implications for their workplaces.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55850b85-f565-4ed9-a41b-53e94a0b780f&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-02-25&utm_term=
Venable LLP
Rebecca H. Ormsbee and James Edward Fagan, III USA
February 22 2010
The Obama Administration’s attempts to fill vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have encountered serious opposition and setbacks, and this has led to corresponding delays in expected stepped-up enforcement efforts by these agencies. In particular, on February 9, 2010, U.S. Senate Democrats were unable to break a filibuster against the nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB. Two Democrats, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, in addition to thirty-one Republicans voted “nay” on the cloture motion. Mr. Becker was President Obama’s nominee to occupy one of three vacancies that the President currently has the opportunity to fill at the NLRB. The President has also offered up a second Democratic nominee, Mark Pearce, as well as a Republican, Brian Hayes, to fill the other two open posts. Mr. Becker’s nomination to fill one of the open NLRB spots was an especially controversial one, primarily due to Becker’s strong ties to organized labor and his work as a lawyer for both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). There remains the possibility, however, that President Obama will use a recess appointment to place Mr. Becker and his fellow nominees on the NLRB on a short term basis.
Meanwhile, the NLRB continues to operate with only two of its five allotted members in place, which has led to a series of court challenges asserting that the Board lacks the necessary quorum to decide cases. A split in the circuits has developed on this question, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition to decide the issue in the case of New Process Steel v. NLRB. A decision from the Court is expected this Spring.
Similar opposition and delay have left the EEOC in the same situation as the NLRB – only two of the Commission’s five allotted seats are currently filled. The President nominated Jacqueline Berrien as EEOC Chair, along with Chai Feldblum and Victoria Lipnic as Commissioners, but the Senate failed to confirm this package in 2009, and the nominations remain pending.
The net result of the delayed appointments at the NLRB and the EEOC is that anticipated significant changes in the enforcement of labor and employment regulations, once expected to take place in 2009, remain on hold for the time being. But the President will ultimately be able to name a majority of the members of both the NLRB and the EEOC, either through recess appointments or Senate confirmations, which will eventually bring about significant change in the enforcement efforts of both agencies. Employers should therefore remain alert to the agency appointment process and its implications for their workplaces.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=55850b85-f565-4ed9-a41b-53e94a0b780f&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-02-25&utm_term=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)