In episode three of the Labor Law Insider podcast, Husch Blackwell attorneys Tom Godar, David Hertel and Laura Malugade note the confirmation of Jennifer Abruzzo as General Counsel as well as two new nominations to the National Labor Relations Board which, upon confirmation, will usher in a new Democratic majority on the Board. With the
The UAW strike against GM represents the latest strike in a string of labor disputes between management and union workers. Continuation of health benefits during a strike is always a consideration in such situations.
After initially stating it would not pay for striking workers’ health care benefits, GM reversed its decision. GM’s decision to terminate health benefits would have shifted the burden of paying for striking workers’ health insurance benefits to the employees under COBRA. The GM situation brings to the forefront the legal issue of who is responsible for the payment of the health insurance benefits for workers who have stopped working to exercise their right to participate in a union strike.
As anticipated, the nationwide trend of enacting “right-to-work” (RTW) legislation has continued to grow – in the past few years alone, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Kentucky have joined the growing list of RTW states. In these states, and the approximately twenty others that have adopted RTW legislation, employers are prohibited from requiring employees
On December 14, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or the “Board”) overruled Obama-era precedent involving two highly controversial decisions governing employee handbooks and joint employment standards.
Earlier this year, President Trump appointed two Republicans to the five-member NLRB resulting in a 3-2 Republican majority for the first time in a decade. As anticipated, the new “Trump Board” is beginning to dismantle a series of decisions that many believed to unfairly favor unions.
New Standard Governing Employee Handbooks
In a split 3-2 decision, the Board majority in . overturned its 2004 Lutheran Heritage standard, which had been used in recent years to render countless employer policies and rules unlawful. The former standard provided that a policy or rule is unlawful if employees could “reasonably construe” the language to bar them from exercising their rights under the NLRA, such as discussing terms and conditions of employment. For the past several years, the Lutheran Heritage standard has been heavily criticized for failing to take into account legitimate business justifications associated with employer policies, rules and handbook provisions in addition to yielding unpredictable and sometimes contradictory results. For example, the standard has deemed unlawful policies that require employees to “work harmoniously” or conduct themselves in a “positive and professional manner.”