In February 2020, the NLRB finally unveiled its long-awaited joint-employer rule governing joint-employer status under the NLRA. The final rule returns the test for determining joint employment to the standard the Board applied for several decades before the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. The test set forth by the new joint-employer rule provides that a business is a joint employer only if it has “substantial direct and immediate control” over another company’s workers and actually exercises that control. While this is no doubt a welcome relief for employers who routinely contract with subcontractors and staffing companies, it is important to note the limited scope and that this rule does not impact joint-employer tests applied under other employment laws. The proposed rule was initially released in late 2018 and ultimately generated nearly 30,000 public comments (see our coverage here).

Although the rule is an employer-friendly change, employees who are terminated for engaging in protected concerted actives will continue to have a claim for relief against their primary employer. Similarly, union organizing efforts can continue amongst temporary employees as they have for years. Bargaining will continue to occur as it always has between employers and their employees’ union representatives. The labor movement, however, is likely disappointed by the demise of the 2015 Browning-Ferris rule.  For years, unions have chaffed at the prohibition against secondary boycotts contained in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. The 2015 Browning-Ferris rule allowed a backdoor repeal of a significant portion of the secondary boycott ban with its loose definition of joint employer.


Continue Reading

The 2020 presidential race is well underway in the U.S. Labor policy has been and will continue to be a key talking point for Democratic candidates and President Donald Trump moving into the general election.

In part one of this two-part article, we examine the key labor policy proposals advanced by the leading Democratic contenders

As the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads into the broader economy, human resource professionals are finding that grappling with the consequences are more complicated in union-represented workforces. In a union workforce, the employer must determine what it has already agreed it will do, the extent of its freedom to address the scenarios created by COVID-19, and the legal framework within which it must act. Below we offer several considerations for employers to adopt.

First, examine the collective bargaining agreement. This will allow you to determine the extent of the company’s freedom to act independently and expeditiously. The place to start is to determine management’s right to schedule work, to idle the plant, to send workers home and to lay-off employees. Determine the restrictions, if any, in these rights, such as call-in pay or weekly guarantees.


Continue Reading

What has changed

On December 10, 2019, the United States, Canada and Mexico reached an agreement on a revised United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), which establishes a rapid response labor mechanism (“RRLM”) for dispute resolution for alleged violations of the right of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in these countries. The mechanism allows the US and Canadian governments to make claims against facilities in Mexico for potential violations of these rights, to the extent that the rights are established by Mexican law. The Mexican government may also file a claim for potential violations to these labor rights in the US or Canada, but only if the facility involved is under an enforced order of the National Labor Relations Board or the Canada Industrial Relations Board, respectively. This mechanism cannot be invoked for disputes of this nature between the US and Canada.


Continue Reading

In a significant decision for the service provider community, this month the National Labor Relations Board dismissed a claim that an employer was required to provide its employees’ union the service contracts it had with its customer. G4S Security Solutions USA, Inc. 369 NLRB No. 7 (2020). The panel decision was unanimous. Notably, however, the decision left open the possibility that a union could require the production of a service agreement if it could demonstrate the agreement was relevant to bargaining.

Continue Reading

U.S. merger and acquisitions activity had another busy year in 2019, with total domestic M&A transactions at $1.1659 trillion, almost equal to 2018’s momentous year, according to reports from the fifth annual global transactions forecast by Oxford Economics Ltd. and Baker McKenzie.

With these transactions, many companies have been looking to acquire businesses with

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in First Student Inc. v. NLRB suggests the judicially-created “perfectly clear” successorship standard to determine whether a company inherited its predecessor’s bargaining agreement is ripe for a challenge.

A divided panel concluded that under the National Labor Relations Act, the “perfectly clear” successor standard applied to a successor

Companies can be more confident that liability under the National Labor Relations Act will not flow from the misclassification of its workforce alone, thanks to a recent NLRB decision. Baker McKenzie attorneys call this welcome news for companies, but say they still must look at workforce relationships and properly classify independent contractors.

In a much

This week, the National Labor Relations Board finally came to its senses and adopted the contract coverage test for cases alleging an employer had unlawfully, unilaterally changed employees’ terms and conditions of employment. MV Transportation, Inc. 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019). This week’s decision is likely to change the forum unions select for the enforcement of their labor agreements. Ironically, the decision may compel employers to consider additional bargaining rather than litigation before an arbitrator given there is little opportunity to appeal an adverse arbitration award.

Continue Reading

As previously detailed here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Epic Systems decision established that requiring employees to waive their right to pursue collective or class actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act’s “catchall” protection—the right to engage in “concerted activity”—and courts must enforce arbitration agreements as written.

The Supreme Court not only confirmed the legality of class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act, but it also narrowly construed the NLRA’s catchall provision as focused on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively in the workplace.

The Court’s holding that the right to engage in such “concerted activities” does not guarantee collective or class action procedures underpins a recent NLRB decision concerning issues of first impression: imposing and requiring as a condition for continued employment a new class action waiver rule in response to collective action.


Continue Reading