Fast food workers strike, nationally, locally

While it seems fast food workers may be getting the cart before the horse by striking before they have a bargaining representative, such tactics are certainly protected conduct, it only remains to be seen if it is effective in causing upward adjustments to pay or other terms and conditions of employment. We even have a West Bank event being reported. Collective actions like these, even where there is no "official" union representation can be protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Employers should proceed with caution, and the advice of a knowledgeable labor practitioner when responding to strikes or other collective activity by employees.

Orange? You're fired!

Sometimes employers do really silly things. Take this law firm that fired 17 employees for wearing orange. Now it did happen the Friday before St. Patrick's day, but there does not appear to be a sensitive Irish logic in the mix. It seems the employer thought the orange shirts were a protest. And as we all know at-will employees can be fired for any reason, even a silly one. The article even quotes an employment lawyer who says just that. But, isn't this protected concerted activity under the NLRA? Surely the employer thought it was, but more than that, if employees choose to dress alike, don't they have a protected right to do that? I think they do.

Dump the NLRB

Does a Republican presidential candidate really want to eliminate the National Labor Relations Board? Be careful what you ask for. Does he intend to repeal the NLRA, or just shift enforcement to federal courts? As we have noted before, plenty in the labor movement might welcome the ability to use economic coercion which the NLRA prohibits.

"At will" policy violates NLRA

Can an employer's "at will" statement and handbook acknowledgement form violate the NLRA? One administrative law judge has ruled it can. In American Red Cross Arizona Blood Services Region, Case No. 28-CA-23443 downloadable here (February 1, 2012) the ALJ found an Employers acknowledgement form, which employees are required to sign, and which states “I further agree that the at-will employment relationship cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way” violated the Act by maintaining and requiring employees to sign an acknowledgement form which is overly-broad and discriminatory. It is reasonable to expect the current NLRB to affirm this decision. If so, a whole lot of employers will be changing their at-will language. ALJ's money quote after the jump.

Public support of unions higher than thought

A new Bloomberg National Poll finds unions with more support than one might suspect. 

Sixty-four percent of respondents, including a plurality of Republicans, say public employees should have the right to bargain collectively for their wages. Sixty-three percent, including 55 percent of Republicans, say states without enough money to pay for all the pension benefits they have promised to current retirees shouldn’t be able to break those obligations.

Secondary boycotts are effective

Business advocates who would do away with the National Labor Relations Board should think about what happens if effective collective actions by unions, like secondary boycotts, were no longer prohibited. After all, other advocacy groups find secondary pressure extremely effective.

Rustbelt Right to Work challenged

A union has sued to block implementation of Indiana's new Right to Work law.

NLRA Poster deadline postponed

Effective today, the NLRB has postponed the effective date for employers posting the required notification of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

No strike for baseball

Owners and players representatives inked a 5 year collective bargaining agreement virtually assuring labor peace in the sport through 2016. The agreement still has to be ratified but faces no serious threat in that process.

New election rules imminent?

The NLRB has issued a press release setting a November 30th vote on some portion of the new rules proposed for conducting NLRB elections. Is this a "ram through" of quickie elections before Member Becker's interim appointment expires? Maybe.

NLRB Poster about employee rights

Here is a lighthearted video on the NLRB's requirement employers post a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations's Act.

NLRB R.I.P.?

A Georgia congressman wants to eliminate the National Labor Relations Board specifically because the Congressman does not like the fact that the Board may find Boeing violated the NLRA. The bill would shift enforcement of unfair labor practice violations to the Justice Department, and processing of representation matters to the Department of Labor. Perhaps this will be a 2012 campaign issue.

NLRB Notice Requirement Delayed

The NLRB has postponed until January 31, 2012 the effective date of the new rule requiring employers to post the Notice of NLRA rights. The reason for the delay: "to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers . . . ."

Trade Group sues to prevent new notice posting requirement

The National Association of Manufacturer's (NAM) has filed suit to compel the NLRB to suspend its new rule requiring employers to post a notice in the workplace concerning rights employees have under the National Labor Relations Act. It appears this is in keeping with the NAM's battle against regulations it maintains impede productivity and job creation. There is a world of difference between a environmental regulation and a notice posting requirement, but as they are both new regulatory restraint, the NAM is against them. The NLRB requirement requires the posting of a notice that the NLRB provides as a free download. Its hard to distinguish this posting requirement from other requirements under state and federal law which compel employers to post notices to inform employees of their rights. The real issue here is employers fear employees might learn something that they will act upon. There is a strong argument the new requirement, when assessed in the context of the new rules for representation elections the Board has proposed, presents an opportunity for the sophisticated employer who integrates appropriate discussions into a program of education for employees.

NRLA rights notice

The NLRB has released a downloadable version of the Notice employers are required to post advising employees of their rights under the NLRA. Our previous post on the requirements is here.

Things change

During the introductory lecture in my labor law class, I point the students to Section 1 of the NLRA which contains findings and policies supporting passage of the Act. The statements are remarkable, even revolutionary when you think of the public's current perception of the role of government and its intrusive effect on private business. The section concludes declaring the public policy of the United States to be one supporting collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Act fundamentally altered the role of government in regulating the process whereby organized labor negotiated with business the terms and conditions of private employment. In class, we discuss not only whether the NLRA would be passed today, we also discuss whether it would be deemed constitutional if considered res nova by the current Supreme Court. Long time blogger Michael Fox posted similar thoughts at Jottings by an Employment Lawyer. How different public sentiment has developed in response to the Great Recession, than it did to the Great Depression. 

Repeal the NLRA

Here is a young author that enthusiastically embraces repeal of the National Labor Relations Act and embracing strikes and boycotts to empower the masses.

AGC Solomon presses better remedies

Acting NLRB General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued a General Counsel's memorandum encouraging the Regions to seek more effective remedies for unfair labor practices committed during organizational campaigns. This adds to his previous instructions to seek injunctive relief for discriminatory discharges during organizing campaigns, previous post here. Included in the new memo are certain limited access remedies including access to company bulletin boards, forced reading of the Board's remedial notices and early access to employee names and addresses.

Technical!

The National Basketball Association (NBA) wants to cut down on complaints and gestures which show insufficient respect for the referees or the game. Arguing a call or other offensive conduct, even if not directed at the game official may result in a technical foul. Technical fouls can also lead to player fines. The players association file unfair labor practices in the 2006-07 season, and again threatens legal action. Griping at work about work rules certainly is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Can the league establish a business justification for the muzzling of the complaints? Would a technical foul remedy do as much injury to the game as complaining?

Minority unions

Here is a pretty good review (pro-labor) of the case for permitting minority unionization which would circumvent any need to prove a union's majority status.