Labor & Employment Law Updates
This week, counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued guidance on whether employees of Agri-Kind, a marijuana enterprise in Pennsylvania, who work in its indoor grow rooms are entitled to protections under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Read More
On January 4, 2021, the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) issued a 2-1 decision holding that an employer’s social media policy, which prohibited employees from engaging in certain communications, did not violate employees’ concerted activity rights afforded under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Read More
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision clarifying that employers can discipline employees for engaging in deeply offensive and abusive conduct, including racially inappropriate language or language of a sexual nature, that occurs while engaging in protected, concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Read More
On February 26, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its final rule on the standard for determining “joint-employer” status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Read More
Although misclassifying employees as independent contractors exposes companies to damages, steep penalties, and other liability, misclassification alone is not an Unfair Labor Practice under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has held.
Read More
Broad arbitration agreements that cover “all claims or controversies” and do not explicitly carve out the right of employees to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) may be unlawful, under a recent NLRB decision.
Read More
A federal appeals court held that In-N-Out Burger violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it instructed employees not to wear “Fight for $15” buttons on their uniforms. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and federal courts have long held that employees have the right to wear buttons, pins, and stickers that relate to the terms and conditions of their employment and unionization, except under “special circumstances.” Special circumstances may exist when allowing employees to display such items would: (1) jeopardize employee safety; (2) damage machinery or projects; (3) exacerbate employee dissention; or (4) unreasonably interfere with a public image that the employer has established through appearance rules of its employees.
Read More
Last week, the National Labor Relations Board’s Office of General Counsel (the NLRB’s “G.C.”) provided clarity as to what facially neutral employment handbook rules will be considered lawful under the NLRB’s updated Boeing Company test.
Read More
A National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held that an employer’s “confidential information” rule prohibited employees from discussing wages, and therefore violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Read More
The newly-confirmed General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), Peter B. Robb, issued a Memorandum that signals sweeping, management-friendly changes for the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel. In his Memorandum, the General Counsel announced a wide-range of cases that must be sent to the Division of Advice (which provides guidance on “difficult and novel issues”), for re-analysis.
Read More
In a rare move, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reversed its Obama-Era position in a significant pending Supreme Court case that is expected to resolve a growing circuit split over whether an employment contract that requires an employee to waive his or her right to bring or participate in a class action violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). In an amicus curiae brief filed on Friday, June 16, 2017, the DOJ sided with employers, expressly acknowledging that it had “previously filed a petition…on behalf of the NLRB, defending the Board’s view” that class action waivers should be invalidated, but stating that “[a]fter the change in administration, the [DOJ] reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion.” In stating that its previous position did not give “adequate weight to the congressional policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements that is reflected in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”),” the DOJ argued in its amicus brief that enforcing arbitration agreement with class waivers does not deprive employees under the NLRB, and that enforcement is required under the FAA with certain limited exceptions.
Read More