Special thanks to Matthew Gorman, Stephanie MacIntosh and Ginger Partee
In part one of our global video series on employee mobility in the current environment, our attorneys discuss the challenges of employee travel into and out of the US and Canada during the upcoming holiday season. We cover immigration complications due to COVID, including
After the fastest reported increase in coronavirus cases since the start of the pandemic- with new infections doubling in the past 10 days-California Governor Newsom “sound[ed] the alarm,” announcing on November 16 that 40 counties are moving in the wrong direction under the state’s reopening plan. Twenty-eight counties moved into the state’s most restrictive purple tier under California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy, signifying that the coronavirus is “widespread.” Now, 41 of the state’s 58 counties are purple, a stark contrast from only 13 purple tier counties last week.
Several Bay Area and Southern California counties are affected:
California employers and employees are already feeling the effects. Purple status severely limits indoor activity, including:
With 94% of the state’s population now in the purple tier, talk of curfews, and restrictions being one step away from the stay-at-home orders that swept the US in March, the scaled back reopening undoubtedly will have devastating economic impacts on businesses and their employees.
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.
“Quick Hits: California’s Top 10 & What You Need To Know In 2021” is designed to ensure that in-house counsel are up to speed on what changed in 2020 and prepared
We are pleased to share a recent SHRM article, “When Should Employers Reimburse Expenses for Remote Workers?,” with quotes from Robin Samuel. This article discusses reimbursing home-based employees for workplace related expenses since they are now working from home due to COVID-19.
Click here to view the article.
This article was originally published in
This video provides practical tips to help in-house counsel best approach the collection and use of diversity data in the US and globally.
Click here to access the video.
Originally featured in Law360.
We recently published an update to our 50-state Shelter-In-Place / Reopening Tracker.
Please see HERE. This is updated weekly.
For your convenience, here is a summary of the major updates from around the country:
On October 7, 2020, the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued its initial FAQ regarding President Trump’s Executive Order 13950, Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (“Executive Order”). As discussed in our recent blog post, the Executive Order prohibits federal contractors from conducting workplace training during the performance of a government contract that inculcates certain “divisive concepts” in employees, and requires federal contractors to impose the same prohibition on their subcontractors and vendors.
The guidance provides some clarity to the Executive Order, which has been widely described as difficult to understand and implement. We highlight some of the guidance’s key points below.
Special thanks to guest contributor, Kim Sartin.
In this podcast, we take an updated look at the reopening landscape. As many businesses have since initiated phased reopenings, additional challenges have arisen for employers, who are navigating changing laws, potential litigation and realigning business needs, all in a wildly unpredictable environment. Additionally, as remote operations
We recently published an update to our 50-state Shelter-In-Place / Reopening Tracker.
Please see HERE. This is updated weekly.
For your convenience, here is a summary of the major updates from around the country:
