Executive Order 13496 Requires Notice to Employees of Right to Organize
Make room on your corporate bulletin boards. Federal contractors and subcontractors are now required to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The notice, prescribed in the Department of Labor's regulations, informs employees of Federal contractors and subcontractors of their rights under the NLRA to organize and bargain collectively with their employers and to engage in other protected concerted activity. Additionally, the notice provides examples of illegal conduct by employers and unions, and it provides contact information to the National Labor Relations Board. Federal contractors and subcontractors are required to post the prescribed employee notice conspicuously in plants and offices where employees covered by the NLRA perform contract-related activity, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted both physically and electronically.
The notice must be posted by June 21, 2010.
Follow this link to the poster: Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act
Follow this link to: USDOL Fact Sheet on Obligation of Federal Contractors to Notify Employees of Their Rights Under Federal Labor Laws
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Federal Contractors , Labor Relations , Policies & Procedures | Permalink
EFCA - Looks Like Card Check is Dead
...scrapped in the Senate in exchange for shortened time between authorization card submission and election. Today's NY Times says:
"Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months.
To further address labor’s concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, key senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that labor supporters deride as “captive audience meetings.”
See today's New York Times:
Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations | Permalink
NLRB Reduces Rights of Employee Union Advocates to Use Employer Email
For more commentary by fellow Lexbloggers see:
- Michael Moore's commentary on the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog
- Christopher Onstott's commentary on the California Labor & Employment Law Blog
Employee Free Choice Act is Dead - For Now
Thank to BLR.com for bringing this to our attention. Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations | Permalink
Employee Fraternization Policies Held to Violate the NLRA
In it's discussion, they note that:
Employees were not permitted to "fraternize on or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." A local union challenged Guardsmark's "fraternization rule" on the grounds that it discouraged protected labor activity—such as the right to join a union or bargain collectively—in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, by prohibiting employees from meeting with each other to discuss the terms and conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Board sided with Guardsmark. The Board found that Guardsmark employees reasonably understood that the non-fraternization rule was designed solely to prohibit interpersonal relationships that could compromise a security guard's judgment and, therefore, did not preclude protected labor activity.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed, and held that the plain language of Guardsmark's "fraternization rule" could be reasonably interpreted as prohibiting protected activity.
Follow this link for Sheppard Mullin's thorough discussion on non-fraternization policies, and the NLRA.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations , Policies & Procedures | Permalink
Can a Company Prevent a Union from Using Email to Talk About Union Matters?
- Do employees have a right to use their employer’s e-mail system to communicate with other employees about union or other concerted, protected matters?
- What restrictions, if any, may an employer place on those communications?
- May an employer prohibit e-mail access to its employees by nonemployees? To what extent may an employer monitor that use to prevent unauthorized use?
- Of what relevance is the location of the employee’s workplace? For example, what if the employee works at home?
- Is employees’ use of their employer’s e-mail system a mandatory subject of bargaining?
Who's Going to Freeze to Death First.....
...the striking transit workers or the millions of New York City workers freezing their tails off walking over the 59th Street Bridge? With weather forecasts in the teens for tonight, I suspect that New York City commuters are going to seriously run out of patience over the course of the next few days while the transit workers engage in an illegal strike. For those of you who aren't experts on New York public sector labor relations, it is illegal for public sector employees to strike in New York State. The "Taylor Law" as it's known imposes a penalty of two day's pay for each day an employee strikes. Before long, the employees will be working for free. In addition, a judge today imposed a $1,000,000/day fine on the union for each day of the strike.
For those of you who think I might be swayed in favor of management here - you're right. The idea the employees are striking over free health insurance when most of the world doesn't get it for free bothers me. The fact that striking is illegal and they decided to do it anyway bothers me. The fact that employees making $60,000 are on strike resulting in other workers making far less having to walk to work bothers me even more. Let's face it, the only ones not bothered by this strike are those that can afford to cab it into Manhattan or in a lofty enough job to telecommute from home and avoid the hassle altogether. Lastly, having just returned from New Orleans and seeing the devastation first hand..... I really have no sympathy.
For a more thought provoking article on the subject (other than my rant here), the Christian Science Monitor discusses some of the implications of the strike here. For the latest happenings from the union's side, see their blog here.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations , New York Law 1 Comments | Permalink
Teamsters and SEIU Defect from AFL-CIO
See this article, which just appeared discussing the decision today of the SEIU and the Teamsters to leave the AFL-CIO. There should be a lot more commentary on this over the next few days.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations | Permalink
Latest on the NHL Lockout
This, just in, on the latest talks between players and owners in the National Hockey League. Looks like no one is going to work soon. NHL Executive Vice President Bill Daly was quoted on CBS Sports as saying: "I think that there is an understanding in the room and in the dialogue across the table that we are really at the end with respect to playing the rest of the season." The NHL lockout is in its 142nd day, and so far, 775 of the 1,230 regular-season games have been lost. CBS Sports has several good articles online which provide a good overview of the history of the dispute. For today's latest go here. For in depth coverage and a nice explanation of the labor relations process go here.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations | Permalink
The NLRB Flips on Unionization of Contingent Workers
A recent opinion by the National Labor Relations Board overturned a ruling from the Clinton era which allowed the Board to include in a bargaining unit, employees who were joint employees of a staffing agency and an employer along with the employer's employees. In Oakwood Care Center 343 NLRB No. 76, Local 1199 of the SEIU sought to organize employees at a New York nursing home. The union sought to include in the bargaining unit employees who were directly employed by the nursing home and contingent workers who were jointly employed by a staffing agency and the employer. The Board now reverts back to a long-standing precedent that prohibits inclusion of the contingent workers into a bargaining unit without the employer's consent. The Board noted that because combining the two groups of employees would result in a multi-employer arrangement, such an arrangement cannot be done without the employer's approval. The decision is available on the NLRB website here.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Labor Relations | Permalink
Companies Sue Retirees to Avoid Honoring Retiree Health Care Obligations
A recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, November 10 - registration required), reported recent attempts by companies to avoid their obligations to provide retiree health coverage. While this concept is nothing new, the article described new, unique and troubling lengths that companies will go to in order to avoid paying for retiree health benefits, seemingly leaving retirees in the dust.
The article describes employers, such as Rexam, Inc., which had previously agreed in labor contracts to provide retirees with lifetime health benefits. The company has taken the affirmative step of suing retirees in court to avoid continuing to provide benefits. By pre-emptively suing retirees, rather than cutting off benefits and waiting for retirees to sue, the company has the opportunity to choose a forum it believes is most favorable to it. They, and other employers, have alleged that "lifetime" benefits really doesn't mean the life of the employee. Instead, they assert, it means the life of the contract, which probably expired years ago. According to the article, retirees who have gone to the Department of Labor have found little help as the Department does not view them as their constituents. The unions' only recourse is to file suits in court on behalf of retirees, as they are prohibited from filing unfair labor practice charges and cannot strike on behalf of retirees. This leaves the retirees with canceled health benefits and a long wait on the court house steps for a remedy which may never come.
It seems that the Circuit courts are split on this issue often choosing one of two options - to favor the language in the collective bargaining agreement (and interpreting it to favor the employee), or to favor the language in the plan document which generally allows an employer to modify a plan under certain circumstances. Only time will tell what the outcome of all of this will be, but for many of these retirees, it may be too late by then. One can only imagine what present employees of these companies are thinking and the effect on morale.
Airlines Seek to Cut Pay and Benefits Again
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that USAirways was seeking to reject certain labor contracts. As many know, the airline is in bankruptcy. It further wishes to reduce health and retirement benefits. You can view the article here. The unions have already taken a 21% pay cut and this rejection of the contracts would most likely result in further reductions in pay and benefits. While these cuts are presumably designed to enable the carrier to tansition from a traditional carrier to a low cost airline, the impact on employees is obviously dramatic. One can only hope that the airline is considering not only the strategic business implications of these changes on the bottom line, but also the strategic people implications of these changes. How loyal or demoralized will these employees be? Conversely, without these reductions can the airline survive? Only the future will tell. In the mean time, the employees continue to take significant blows as the airline transforms its business strategy.
Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Compensation & Benefits , Corporate Turnaround , HR Strategy , Labor Relations | Permalink
