Under a typical election scenario, a union files an election petition with the Board’s Regional Office, along with a “showing of interest” demonstrating enough employee support (at least 30% of the unit described in the petition) to justify an election. The union also serves the petition on the employer, along with a description of Board procedures, informing parties of their rights and obligations in the process, and a “statement of position” form.
On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued its anticipated ruling in Stericycle, Inc., reversing the Trump-era Boeing decision that famously implemented a three-category test for balancing whether workplace rules unlawfully interfered with employees’ rights to engage in “protected concerted activity” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).
According to a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of Americans “approve of labor unions,” up three percentage points from 2021.
This represents a generational high-water mark for union support – the last time Gallup measured a higher union approval rating among the American public was 1959 when 73 Americans approved of labor unions. Prior to this year, union support had remained lower than 70% ever since union support dropped to 66 percent in 1967. The low-water mark was reached in 2009 when unions enjoyed only 48% support from the American public.
On August 29, 2022, the NLRB issued its decision in Tesla, Inc., overruling precedent that allowed employers to enforce facially-neutral dress codes to prohibit wearing non-conforming attire, including union insignia and union logos. Now, employers must allow employees to wear union attire absent a showing of “special circumstances.”
It has become increasingly apparent that the Biden Administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is aggressively pushing labor-friendly positions, like those seen under the Obama Administration.
Now it appears the NLRB’s General Counsel has taken aim at Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), and in so doing undermines 75 years of jurisprudence as “incorrectly concluded.”
On April 7, 2022, the NLRB announced the General Counsel’s desire to restrict employers’ ability to speak to their employees about unions, whether in so-called “captive audience” meetings, or whether “cornered by management while performing their job duties.” The General Counsel claims such meetings and conversations “inherently involve an unlawful threat that employees will be disciplined or suffer other reprisals if they exercise their protected right not to listen to such speech.”
On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), issued an Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (ETS). The ETS covers employers with 100 or more employees—firm or company-wide—and provides options for compliance. The ETS requires covered employers to develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Alternatively, covered employers may adopt a policy requiring employees to choose between vaccination and regular COVID-19 testing and wearing a face covering at work. The ETS also requires covered employers to provide up to four hours of paid time to workers to get vaccinated and to allow for paid leave to recover from side effects.
On June 10, 2021 OSHA issued a Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to help address the circumstances surrounding occupational hazards existing in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rule was published in the in the Federal Register and became effective on June 21. Employers must comply with most of the requirements set forth
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO Act) (H.R. 842) is a sweeping effort to amend longstanding labor laws to facilitate union and employee organizing efforts. The union-friendly legislation would make the most significant modifications to the National Labor Relations Act since the Taft-Hartley Act restricted union power in 1947. The proposed changes would give workers and unions more power in disputes at work, add monetary penalties for companies that retaliate against workers who organize and expand collective bargaining rights for many workers. The PRO Act would also weaken “right-to-work” laws in more than half of the states that give employees the right to choose not to join or pay dues to unions.
These efforts to tip the balance in favor of union organizing are not new. We have seen many of these proposed changes show up in past legislative efforts. Similar changes were part of the Employee Free Choice Act introduced before the election of, and supported by, President Obama. The PRO Act passed the Democratic controlled House last year but was never taken up by the then GOP majority Senate. This year the Democrats narrowly control the Senate, but not by enough votes to overcome a filibuster, which ordinarily means that the measure is likely dead again.
Below is a summary of a several provisions of the PRO Act:
When a workforce organizes a union and a labor contract is still months away, human resource issues continue to arise. Often the issue turns on whether the employer has an obligation to bargain with the new union prior to the imposition of workplace discipline. Prior to 2016, under long-settled case law, employers had no statutory
COVID-19 presents a formidable health and safety challenge to employers, and unionized employers also must address issues in the context of their obligations under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and a collective bargaining agreement. The broad range of issues includes both mandatory subjects of bargaining and business decisions that impact the employees of the bargaining unit. Such issues include health and safety concerns, attendance and staffing issues, wage and hour issues, leave issues, changes in work schedules, layoffs, and temporary reductions in hours or closure of the business to reduce infection rates. Missteps in effectuating these major changes can lead to violations of the NLRA and an increase in the incidence of workers refusing to work. Employer’s ability to navigate these issues successfully requires an understanding of their rights under both the collective bargaining agreement and federal law in this novel situation. Here are some key considerations and proactive measures employers can take to facilitate timely and decisive employment actions.