As time has passed, nurses throughout the country have been pushing for legislation similar to what was passed in California, mandating minimum staffing requirements.Continue Reading Healthcare Minimum Staffing Levels Pursuant To State And Federal Guidelines On The Horizon
On June 1, 2021, in a 5-2 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court sitting en banc affirmed a circuit court decision that voided in its entirety HB 1413, which was enacted by the Missouri legislature in 2018 and sought to change collective bargaining laws for public-sector labor organizations in the state of Missouri. We previously discussed the circuit court’s decision in our December 14, 2020 post, Missouri Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Public Reform Law. While the circuit court decision permanently enjoined the Missouri State Board of Mediation and Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations from implementing and enforcing the law, the law was not void with respect to entities that were not parties to the litigation—until the Missouri Supreme Court released its decision. As of June 1, 2020, HB 1413 is void in its entirety with respect to all entities in Missouri.
Continue Reading Missouri Supreme Court Voids 2018 Missouri Public Reform Law
Key Points:
Continue Reading Court Upholds Narrow University Rule to Reduce Firearm Crime
On November 16, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Missouri National Education Association, et al. v. Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, et al., Ferguson-Florissant School District, et al, challenging a circuit court ruling that House Bill 1413 (HB 1413), a public labor union reform law, is unconstitutional in its entirety. The circuit court held that the 2018 law unlawfully discriminates against certain public labor unions representing first responder personnel and infringes on public employees’ fundamental rights to bargain collectively and to choose their own representative, as well as certain First Amendment and equal protection rights. Upon concluding that the unconstitutional provisions dominate “the entirety of the legislative intent to undermine the plaintiff’s fundamental rights,” the circuit court enjoined the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and the Missouri State Board of Mediation (SBM) from implementing and enforcing the provisions of HB 1413. On appeal, the Defendants assert that the right to bargain collectively is not a constitutionally protected fundamental right and deny that the restrictions imposed by HB 1413 abridge public employees’ constitutional rights.
Continue Reading Missouri Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Public Labor Reform Law
For a number of years now, since the Missouri’s Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Independence NEA v. Independence School District, there has been a great deal of confusion regarding the collective bargaining process in the State of Missouri for public employees. All processes for those employees that were specifically excluded from the statutory
On February 3, 2016, Husch Blackwell Labor and Employment attorneys Terry Potter and Robert Rojas presented a webinar on Workplace Safety vs. Workplace Gun Rights. The webinar focused on the legal landscape of current gun legislation, how certain legislation affects employers and the workplace, and how to minimize any risks associated with that legislation. Specifically,
A bill that would make Missouri the latest state to adopt so-called right-to-work laws or policies passed the Republican-controlled House here on Thursday, but without enough votes to override an expected veto from the Democratic governor.
The business groups and conservatives that have for years pushed for a Missouri right-to-work law had hoped they would
The Governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, today issued an Executive Order banning fair share fee agreements for public sector workers in the state. Under the Order, all state agencies are “prohibited from enforcing . . . Fair Share Contract Provisions.” Much of the Order describes the Governor’s reading of Harris v. Quinn and his conclusion