Signaling the beginning of what likely will be a major policy shift, Peter Ohr, acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, revoked 12 administrative guidance memoranda issued by his predecessor, Peter Robb. Both union and nonunion employers should keep a close eye on further action by Ohr.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
With the COVID-19 emergency impacting employers’ operations and the way employees work, more and more employees may start taking to social media to vent their opinions about work and current events (sometimes intertwining the two). Employee social media expression can damage an organization’s brand and violate its social media and non-disparagement rules. Discipline for social media expression can run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which provides certain protections for employee speech, including social media speech, so that employees often believe that anything goes in this forum. Fortunately for employers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently clarified the types of employee social media activity employers may regulate, giving employers more latitude to discipline employees for social media conduct that violates employer rules and threatens the employer’s reputation.
Continue reading “NLRB Expands Employer Options for Social Media and Non-Disparagement Rules”
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issued a long-awaited decision giving employers more freedom to discipline employees who engage in abusive, obscene or profane conduct in connection with their work. In General Motors, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), the NLRB rejected three context-specific rules formerly used to assess whether an employee’s inappropriate conduct is protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act). Instead, the NLRB will now assess that conduct under the Wright Line standard, which is used to evaluate all other claims of discriminatory conduct under the Act.
On July 20, labor organizations across the country are planning a “Strike for Black Lives,” a national walkout in support of “dismantling racism and white supremacy to bring about fundamental changes in our society, economy and workplaces.” When preparing for this and any political strike, employers should develop a response strategy — grounded in NLRB interpretations of employees’ rights to conduct political demonstrations — to limit liability and keep their businesses running.
Continue reading “Political Strike Guidance for Employers: Preparing for ‘Strike for Black Lives’”
On May 30, 2020, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued an eleventh-hour decision preventing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from implementing several substantive portions of the NLRB’s new union election rules. Promulgated via rulemaking in December 2019, the NLRB planned to implement the new rules on May 31, 2020 after postponing the original enactment by over a month. Nevertheless, the NLRB has announced that it will implement the portions of new rules deemed procedural by the Court.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Last fall, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) moved away from the strict “clear and unmistakable” standard when determining whether unions and their members waived certain rights. Since issuing its MV Transportation, Inc. decision in September 2019, the NLRB no longer requires employers to demonstrate that a union clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over the subject of a unilaterally implemented change. For a detailed analysis of last September’s NLRB decision, please see our September 2019 MV Transportation, Inc. alert. In the eight months since that decision, some courts have begun to apply elements of the new waiver standard.