Tag Archives: board

E-Mails and NRLB: Do Employees Have Rights?

On April 30, 2014, the NLRB announced that it is considering overturning Register Guard, 351 NLRB 110 (2007), enfd. in relevant part and remanded sub nom, Guard Publishing v. NLRB, 571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

The issue resolves around the current existing law that states:

Employees have no statutory right to use the[ir] Employer’s e-mail system for Section 7 purposes.

The NLRB is requesting amici briefs that address the following questions:

  1. Should the Board reconsider the conclusion in Register Guard that employees do not have a statutory right to use their employer’s email system (or other electronic communication systems) for Section 7 purposes?
  2. If the Board overrules Register Guard, what standard(s) of employee access to the employer’s electronic communication systems should be established? What restrictions, if any, may an employer place on such access, and what factors are relevant to such restrictions?
  3. In deciding the above questions, to what extent and how should the impact on the employer of employees’ use of an employer’s electronic communications technology affect the issue?
  4. Do employee personal electronic devices (e.g., phones, tablets), social media accounts, and/or personal email accounts affect the proper balance to the be struck between employers’ rights and employees’ Section 7 rights to communicate about work-related matters? If so, how?
  5. Identify any other technological issues concerning email or other electronic communication systems that the Board should reconsider in answering the foregoing questions, including any relevant changes that may have occurred in electronic communications technology since Register Guard was decided. How should these affect the Board’s decision?

 

The briefs are due on or before June 16, 2014 and cannot exceed 25 pages.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under attorneys, briefs, civil rights, electronic discovery, employment, federal, labor, legal decision, NLRA, NLRB, rules, Section 7, union

Admission to the MN Bar changes

On January 17, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed changes to the admission to the Bar.  The amendments that changed the Rules of Admission are:

Definitions:  Rule 2A(12) definition of Uniform Bar Examination.  Under the new amendment, UBE is “an examination prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), comprised of six Multistate Essay Examination questions, two Multistate Performance Test questions, and the Multistate Bar Examination.  See amendments to Rule 7C (Admission by UBE score).

Requirements for Admission:  Rule 4A(4) was amended to state that an eligible applicant must provide satisfactory evidence of a passing score on the written examination under Rule 6 and is not eligible for admission under Rules 7A (Eligibility by Practice), 7B (Eligibility by MBE), 7C (Eligibility by UBE), 8, 9, or 10.

Requirements for Admission:  Rule4B was stricken.  Rule4B previously stated that the applicant had to be a resident of Minnesota or maintain an office in Minnesota or designate the Clerk of Appellate Courts as agent for service of process for all purposes.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions was amended to delete the following subjects:

  1. Civil Procedure (but note that the amendment added a Federal Civil Procedure subject);
  2. Ethics and Professional Responsibility;
  3. Federal Individual Income Taxation;
  4. Uniform Commercial Code Art. 1 &2 (but note that under the Contracts subject, the amendments include the UCC; as well as the new subject of Negotiable Instruments); and
  5. Wills, Estates and Trusts (but note that there is a new subject of Trusts and Estates).

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions added the following subjects:

  1. Conflict of Laws;
  2. Federal Civil Procedure;
  3. Negotiable Instruments (Commercial Paper) under the UCC;
  4. Secured Transactions under the UCC; and
  5. Trusts and Estates.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions further stated what topics where covered under the following subjects:

  1. Business Associations – the subject no longer includes proprietorships;
  2. Contracts – the amendment stated the subject includes contracts under the UCC; and
  3. Trusts and Estates – the subject includes Decedents’ Estates, and Trusts and Future Interests

The Examination: Rule 6E(2) Multistate Performance Test stated there will be two 90-minute questions.  The prior rule stated one or two.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(C) Eligibility by UBE score was added to the ways an applicant may be admitted.  Rule 7A(C) states that the applicant might have received a certified scaled score of 260 or higher.  Rule 7A(C) also states the application must be completed within 36 months of the date of the examination.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(D) Transfer of MBE or UBE score was amended to add UBE.

Confidentiality and Release of Information:  Rule 14C(4) Examination of Data now includes the disclosure of the UBE.  In addition Rule 14C(5) specifies that the director may release copies of unsuccessful examinee’s answers to MEE and MPT questions.

via STATE OF MINNESOTA. (published by Minnesota Lawyer – subscription required).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law Schools, law students, Minnesota, rules

NLRB Issues Major Decision Imposing Bargaining Obligation Over Discipline Before Union Reaches Contract

Alan Ritchey Inc., 359 N.L.R.B. No. 40, 12/14/12 [released 12/19/12], is a major NLRB decision. The time after a union is certified until it reaches its first contract is often long and difficult.

This decision holds, for the first time, that an employer MUST bargain with the union BEFORE imposes major discipline on unit employees notwithstanding the fact that a CBA has not been reached. As the NLRB stated:

Not every unilateral change that affects terms and conditions of employment triggers the duty to bargain. Rather, the Board asks “whether the changes had a material,substantial, and significant impact on the employees’ terms and conditions of employment.” Toledo Blade Co., 343 NLRB 385, 387 2004 emphasized.

This test is a pragmatic one, designed to avoid imposing a bargaining requirement in situations where bargaining is unlikely to produce a different result and, correspondingly, where unilateral action is unlikely to suggest to employees that the union is ineffectual or to precipitate a labor dispute. We draw on this basic principle, adjusted to fit the present context, today.

Disciplinary actions such as suspension, demotion, and discharge plainly have an inevitable and immediate impact on employees’ tenure, status, or earnings. Requiring bargaining before these sanctions are imposed is appropriate, as we will explain, because of this impact on the employee and because of the harm caused to the union’s effectiveness as the employees’ representative if bargaining is postponed.

Just as plainly, however, other actions that may nevertheless be referred to as discipline and that are rightly viewed as bargainable, such as oral and written warnings, have a lesser impact on employees, viewed as of the time when action is taken and assuming that they do not themselves automatically result in additional discipline based on an employer’s progressive disciplinary system.

Bargaining over these lesser sanctions—which is required insofar as they have a “material, substantial, and significant impact” on terms and conditions of employment—may properly be deferred until after they are imposed.

(emphasis added).

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: NLRB Issues Major Decision Imposing Bargaining Obligation Over Discipline Before Union Reaches Conract.

Leave a comment

Filed under labor, legal decision, NLRB, union