D.C. Circuit Strikes Down NLRB Notice Rule

In NAM v. NLRB, No. 12-5068 (D.C Cir. May 17, 2013), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck against the NRLB notice rule.

The background is as follows.  On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a final rule regarding notice posting.  76 Fed. Reg. 54,006.  That final rule provides:

All employees subject to the NLRA must post notices to employees, in conspicuous places, informing them of their NLRA rights, together with Board contact information and information concerning basic enforcement procedures…”

39 C.F.R. 104.202(a).  The final rule also declares that failure to post this notice is an unfair labor practice (ULP).   In other words, if an employer fails to put up a NLRB notice, the employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  This is essentially the focus for the Court of Appeals.

The court explained that under Section 8(e), the Board cannot find non-coercive employer speech to be an ULP or evidence of an ULP.  The Court of Appeals found that the NLRB’s final rule did both.  The court states,

Under the rule an employer’s failure to post the required notice constitutes an unfair labor practice.  See 29 C.F.R. 104.210, 104.201.  And the Board may consider an employer’s ‘knowing and willful’ noncompliance to be ‘evidence of antiunion animus in cases in which unlawful motive [i]s an element of an unfair labor practice.’ 76 Fed. Reg. at 54,035-36; see also 29 C.F.R. 104.214(b).

(as in original).

Successor Liability does not cover federal claims

Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, LLC (7th Cir. 2013) held that  a buyer of a company’s assets can’t rely on state law to keep  a seller’s violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from transferring to the buyer of the Seller company’s assets.  This standard has been previously applied to the LMRA, NLRA, Title VII, ADEA, and FMLA.

The Seventh Circuit explained that federal labor law claims are governed by federal common law, not state law.  Further, the court explained that employees do not have the power to stop an owner from selling the company.  Therefore, the buyer (successor) is stuck with the seller’s (prior owner) liability regardless of what the contract states.

To determine whether successor liability will apply, the Seventh Circuit considered the following multi-part balancing test:

1. Whether the successor had notice of the pending law suit;
2. Whether the predecessor would have been able to provide the relief sought in the lawsuit before the sale;
3. Whether the predecessor could have provided relief after the sale;
4. Whether the successor can provide the relief sought in the suit (if not successor liability is a phantom); and
5. Whether there is continuity between the operations and work force of the predecessor and the successor – which favors successor liability because nothing really has changed.

via Buyer Beware of Successor Liability For FLSA Claims | Sands Anderson PC – JDSupra.

NLRB Overrules Anheuser-Busch, Favors Balancing Test on Witness Statements

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Piedmont Gardens, 359 NLRB No. 46, overruled a 36-year-old “bright-line rule” that denied labor organization representatives access to witness statements obtained by unionized employers, finding NLRB should balance the interests of unions and employers in assessing union requests for the names or statements of witnesses interviewed during a company investigation.

By overruling Anheuser-Busch, 237 NLRB 982 (1978), and applying instead the Detroit Edison balancing test, the NLRB found that respondents violated the NLRA by failing to provide the witness statements.  In the Detroit Edison balancing test, the board will balance the union’s need for relevant information against the legitimate and substantial employer’s interest in keeping information confidential.

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: NLRB Overrules Anheuser-Busch Precedent, Favors Balancing Test on Witness Statements.

Campaign donation issue reopened

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 12-536.   The gist of this case deals with the constitutionality of the two-year ceilings that federal law sets on what an individual can give during a campaign for the presidency or Congress, in donations to candidates, to political parties, or to other political committees.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly promise whether it would reconsider its decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).  Since Buckley, the government had more leeway to control contributions to candidates or political organizations than over spending by candidates or by independent political activists.

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided a hotly controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  In Citizens United, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional any limit on spending during federal campaigns by corporations or labor unions, so long as they spent the money independently of a candidate or candidate organization.

In McCutcheon, McCutcheon wants to be able to give more contributions than the two-year overall limits.  McCutcheon’s contributions, if he could go over the limit, would have exceeded the two-year ceiling by $26,200.

Under federal law, the ceiling for the 2011-2012 campaign season was $2,500 per election to any candidate or a candidate’s campaign organization, no more than $30,800 per year to a national political party, no more than $10,000 per year to a state political party, and no more than $5,000 to any other political committee.

The two year ceiling for that same period, which is the issue in this case, is set at $177,000 overall.  That is broken down into $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to non-candidate entities.  The second amount was restricted in that no more than $46,200 could be given to a state party or a non-candidate committee.

via Campaign donation issue reopened : SCOTUSblog.

Donning and Doffing: paying for changing “work clothes”?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide the Donning and Doffing issue as, how does Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) define “changing clothes.”

In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, a class of 800 members filed a collective action against U.S. Steel Corp.  The issue on the 7th Circuit Court was whether workers deserved overtime pay for the time spent changing into work clothes and walking from locker rooms to their work site.

The FLSA ordinarily requires that workers be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, and time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours in a week.  However, Section 203(o) provides that any time spent changing “clothes” at the beginning or end of each workday may be excluded from working time by the express terms of, or custom or practice under, a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.  In Sandifer, the collective bargaining agreement did not require compensation for changing time.

In this collective action, the class argued that Section 203(o) exclusion was inapplicable because their work attire did not constitute “clothes,” but rather “safety equipment.”  The alleged work clothes in this case included: flame-retardant pants and jacket, work gloves, metatarsal boots, hard hats, safety glasses, ear plugs, and a “snood” (a hood that covers the top of the head, the chin, and the neck).

The district court held that the FLSA did not require compensation for clothes-changing time.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  The 7th Circuit explained that the articles seems to be clothing.  The 7th Circuit stated that the articles of clothing were both, clothing and personal protective equipment,

Protection – against sun, cold, wind, blisters, stains, insect bites, and being spotted by animals that one is hunting – is a common function of clothing, and an especially common function of work clothes worn by factory workers.  It would be absurd to exclude all work clothes that have a protective function… and thus limit the exclusion largely to actors’ costumes and waiters’ and doormen’s uniforms.  Remember that the section covers not only clothes-changing time but also washing-up time, and workers who wear work clothes for self-protection in a dangerous or noxious work environment are far more likely to require significant time for washing up after work than a waiter.”

(emphasis added).

In addition, the 7th Circuit relied heavily on the fact that the collective bargaining agreement did not imply that workers were to be compensated for the time spent changing into work clothes, and washing up and changing back.

via Courthouse News Service.

NBA Union Executive Director Dismissed

The last couple of days, I have been reading about the possible ousting of NBA Union Executive Director.  Yesterday (Saturday), the union representatives voted unanimously to dismiss him.

After a 469-page audit report conducted a law firm, the report charged former executive director Billy Hunter with nepotism, poor management, and abuse of union resources.  The audit did not find any criminal wrongdoing.  Nevertheless, the report concluded that Hunter had put his own interests ahead of the union’s and recommended that the players reconsider his employment.

The move to dismiss the former NBA union Executive Director Billy Hunter was announced by the union president Derek Fisher.  Hunter’s business practices had drawn the scrutiny of three government agencies.

In his blog, Hunter announced, “During the days and weeks ahead, my legal team and I will begin carefully reviewing the actions taken and statements made against me in the meeting room in my absence.”

via N.B.A. Players Dismiss Union Leader – NYTimes.com.

NLRB charge alleging illegal picketing at Wal-Mart held in abeyance

The NLRB Office of General Counsel today announced that, based on specific commitments made by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, it is not necessary to decide the merits of an unfair labor practice charge filed by Wal-Mart against the UFCW.

In that charge, filed November 20, Wal-Mart alleged that the union violated the National Labor Relations Act by picketing at its stores for more than 30 days with the intent of seeking recognition for the union, without filing a petition for an election. The union, however, contended that the actions at the stores were not intended to gain union recognition, but to help employees in their efforts to have the employer commit to certain labor rights and standards.

The charge will be held in abeyance and dismissed in six months as long as the union complies with the commitments it has made. Under those commitments, described in an Advice Memorandum, the union disavowed any recognitional or organizational object and promised to maintain a disclaimer to that effect on Making Change for Wal-Mart and OUR Walmart websites. The union also promised, among other things, not to engage in any picketing or confrontational conduct which is the functional equivalent of picketing for 60 days.

via NLRB charge alleging illegal picketing at Wal-Mart held in abeyance | NLRB.

More on NLRB Recess Appointments

There is much talk on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the President’s NLRB recess appointments was unconstitutional.

Shortly thereafter, the NLRB released a press release stating:

The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.  It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other court of appeals.

Below is a compilation of pending cases, as put together by SCOTUS Blog by Lyle Denniston:

• D.C. Circuit — fifteen other challenges pending, most if not all of which will be decided on the basis of last Friday’s ruling.  The cases are either in the briefing stage, or awaiting a briefing schedule.
• Second Circuit — one case, in briefing.
• Third Circuit — three cases, one set for argument March 19 NLRB v. New Vista Nursing, docket 11-3440; one case being held for that case, another in briefing.
• Fourth Circuit — four cases, one set for argument March 22 NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co. SE, docket 12-1514; others in briefing.
• Fifth Circuit — one case, in briefing.Sixth Circuit — one case, in briefing.
• Seventh Circuit — two cases: one decided, but not on the merits of the appointments power; one in briefing.Ninth Circuit — one case, in briefing.
• Eleventh Circuit — one case, in briefing.
• The only federal appeals courts in which no such cases are pending are the First, Eighth, and Tenth.

via Spreading challenge to appointment power UPDATED : SCOTUSblog.

NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional.  It goes without saying that the possible ramifications of this decision, which may impact other NLRB decisions.

In Noel Canning, the NLRB held that the issue presented was mooted because the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional.  In its decision, the court essentially stated that the Senate wasn’t in recess.  The court reasoned that “recess” occurs when Congress is not in one of its regular two or three sessions.

via Workplace Prof Blog: D.C. Circuit Holds NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional.

Unionization Rates Continue to Decline

On January 23, 2013, the BLS released its annual report on the rate of unionization. Overall, the rate of unionization feel from 11.8% to 11.3%. Public sector workers had a 35.8 percent membership rate while the rate on unionization in the private sector dropped to 6.6%.

Significantly, however, union members continue to earn more than there non-union counterparts. As the report states:

In 2012, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $943, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $742.

In addition to coverage by a collective bargaining agreement, this earnings difference reflects a variety of influences, including variations in the distribution sof union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm size, or geographic region.

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: Breaking News. Unionization Rates Continue to Decline.