The US Department of Labor is developing a new regulation on joint employment under the FLSA, a possible first step towards reversing the Trump administration’s business-friendly rule on the joint employer standard.
On February 23, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) posted on its
Special thanks to presenters Melissa Allchin, Matthew Gorman, Christopher Guldberg, Scott McMillen, Betsy Morgan, Michael Poland, Sandhya Sharma, Aimee Soodan, Brian Wydajewski.
In these recordings of our two-part webinar series, our presenters take a look back at 2020 and forecast what is likely to have the
On February 4, 2021, House Democrats reintroduced the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 (PRO Act). The sweeping labor legislation, which would return many provisions of current labor laws to their pre-1947 status, would create new claims and impose punitive penalties and strengthen a number of union and employee rights. The legislation has
We are exited to invite you to our two-part Annual Illinois Employer Update on February 2, 2021 from 1:00 – 2:15 pm CST and February 4, 2021 from 3:00 – 4:15 pm CST.
In two 75-minute virtual sessions, we will forecast what is likely to have the most significant impact on Illinois employers in 2021,
In the somewhat-near future, US employers actually may be able to replace face coverings, social distancing markers, plexiglass barriers and Zoom calls with face-to-face interaction and handshakes. At least two COVID-19 vaccines are expected to be issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) by the FDA before the end of 2020, following closely behind the footsteps of the UK, which began vaccinations on December 8, 2020.
While this is good news for the country, the change won’t be felt immediately for most US employers. On December 1, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel advised that the first vaccine doses should go to health-care workers and long-term care facility residents. The next group up is reportedly other “high risk” groups: bus drivers, factory workers, teachers, older people and people with underlying conditions. At this point, widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines is not expected until spring or summer of 2021. So, what should US employers whose workforce may not be eligible for vaccinations until later in the year be doing now to prepare?
Continue Reading Coronavirus Vaccines are Coming in the US: What Should US Employers Do Next?
Ahead of President-Elect Biden’s inauguration in January, employers have a preview of what is likely to come in the form of stronger union and employee rights. On February 6, 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 (commonly known as the “PRO Act”), which contains ambitious changes to the current labor landscape. Changes include expanding the scope of joint employer under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), narrowing the definition of “supervisor” under the NLRA, expanding the right to strike to include secondary boycotts among other strikes, and providing additional avenues for workers to participate in collective or class actions. While the Senate has not acted on the bill since it was passed by the House, employers would do well to keep an eye on the revival of the PRO Act or any similar legislation. As an update to our recent blogpost on the PRO Act (here), we highlight two changes below that threaten employers if the PRO Act becomes law.
The PRO Act amends the NLRA to prohibit any employer attempt to execute or enforce any agreement whereby an employee promises not to pursue any class or collective actions. Notably, this provision in effect would overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). The Epic Systems Court held that an arbitration agreement waiving the right to proceed collectively under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is enforceable, subject to generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, unconscionability, or duress. Moreover, the Court held that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement did not violate employees’ rights under the NLRA. In contrast, the PRO Act’s amendments to the NLRA specifically provide that notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act (the federal statute authorizing arbitration agreements), an employer’s attempt to enforce class action waivers in an arbitration agreement would be an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.
Continue Reading PRO Act Likely to Impact Employment Litigation
Non-union employers historically have been little concerned by labor unrest. They will be in for a rude awakening if the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) is signed into law during a Biden administration. The sweeping rewrite of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) occasioned by the PRO Act has serious ramifications for union represented workforces as well. The PRO Act would remove the existing ban on secondary strikes, and remove the ban on recognitional strikes lasting over 30 days. The PRO Act would also legalize the intermittent strike and the partial strike. Additionally, the PRO Act bans the permanent replacement of strikers and prohibits terminating employees who engage in strikes. Below, we discuss several ways the passage of the PRO Act would change the labor landscape.
Continue Reading PRO Act Likely to Bring Labor Unrest to Main Street
Parties before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) often wonder whether it is worthwhile to appeal adverse rulings or respond when favorable rulings are received. Two recent appellate court decisions demonstrate the value of sticking with an argument from start to finish.
First, in Davidson Hotel Company v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2020), the D.C. Circuit recently took the highly unusual step of rejecting an NLRB determination as to the appropriate unit for bargaining at a small, full-service hotel in Chicago. For context, the NLRB had determined that the Davidson Hotel’s employees should be segregated into three separate bargaining units: a unit of front desk employees, a unit of housekeeping employees, and a unit of food and beverage employees. The union petitioned the Board to certify a single unit of housekeeping employees and food and beverage employees.
The Board’s Regional Director decided that a unit consisting of the housekeeping and the food and beverage employees was not an appropriate unit because it did not include the front desk employees, and he dismissed the union’s petition for an election. The Regional Director reached his decision by applying the NLRB’s “community of interest” test, under which the NLRB examines: (1) whether employees in the proposed unit have sufficient commonality in working conditions and job duties (among other factors) such that bargaining as a collective group is possible; and (2) whether employees in the unit have such distinctive interests from those who are excluded-here, the front desk employees-such that they should bargain separately. In his order dismissing the union’s initial petition for a single bargaining unit of housekeeping and food and beverage employees, the Regional Director decided that the unit did not have distinctive interests from the front desk workers, but he hinted that two separate units (one for housekeeping and another for food and beverage) might be appropriate.
Following his cue, the union promptly filed two petitions seeking one election in the housekeeping unit and a second election in the food and beverage service unit. Again, the union did not seek to represent the front desk employees. This time, the Regional Director found that the community of interest test was satisfied and he certified the two units. When an election was held, the union prevailed in both units.
We are pleased to share a recent Law 360 article, “Ill. Venue Ruling Shows Value of Analyzing Remote Work,” with quotes from William Dugan. This article discusses the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Tabirta v. Cummings, where the state high court ruled a defendant food manufacturer would have had to target an employee’s home
It is customary to read of employees claiming retaliation against their employer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Bator v. District Council 4, Graphic Communications Conference represents the almost unheard of — employees claiming retaliation at the hands of their union instead.
In Bator, union members simply wanted
