Employer Labor Relations

By:  Paul Galligan and Samuel Sverdlov Seyfarth Synopsis: The NLRB’s Office of General Counsel has issued an Advice Memorandum stating that an employer lawfully refused a union’s information request regarding its tax cut savings during bargaining. During collective bargaining, employers often deal with an uncomfortable dilemma — comply with invasive and overbroad information requests from unions or withhold information, and risk Board litigation.  However, in a recent Advice Memorandum, the NLRB’s Office of the…
On December 28, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), in a 2-1 decision (Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. v. NLRB, No. 16-1028), invalidated the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) controversial joint employer test adopted in Browning-Ferris, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (Browning-Ferris). The Court remanded the case back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Joint employer status potentially can…
By: Monica Rodriguez, Esq. Seyfarth Synopsis: In September 2018, the NLRB released its new proposed rule regarding the joint employer standard. The NLRB extended the comment period twice since the release of the new proposed rule. Comments are now due on or before January 14, 2019. Individuals waiting on pins and needles in anticipation of the outcome of the new proposed joint employer rule will have to wait a bit longer. On September 14, 2018,…
 By: Monica Rodriguez, Esq. Seyfarth Synopsis: The NLRB suspends its request for briefing regarding potential changes to the construction industry bargaining relationship in light of Charging Party Union’s withdrawal of the underlying charge. The review of whether to make changes to construction industry bargaining relationship has been put on hold. As Seyfarth reported, the NLRB had issued a request for amicus briefs on what the standard should be to determine the majority status of…
  By: Ashley Laken, Esq. Seyfarth Synopsis: Millennials are an ever-growing portion of the workforce, and they generally have favorable views toward labor unions.  Employers would be well-advised to be attuned to this reality and they may want to consider developing and implementing strategies aimed at heading off union organizing before it starts. According to a Pew Research Center analysis earlier this year, Millennials now make up more than 35% of the U.S. labor force,…
By Joshua Henderson & Timothy M. Hoppe Seyfarth Synopsis: AB 1654 provides a PAGA exemption for certain employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. While AB 1654 is limited to the construction industry, its underlying rationale applies much more broadly, and may augur further thoughtful restrictions on PAGA’s broad scope. California’s Private Attorneys General Act, imposing draconian penalties for even relatively trivial Labor Code violations, remains the bane of California employers. Efforts to restrict PAGA’s scope…
By:  Alison C. Loomis Seyfarth Synopsis:  Employers may challenge whether unions still have majority support between the date that agreement on a collective bargaining agreement was reached and the date that the agreement becomes effective. The Board’s contract-bar doctrine limits the circumstances under which an election petition is processed if the petition is filed during the term of a collective bargaining agreement.  In other words, employers (or rival unions) are “barred” from filing an election…
  By: Tiffany Tran, Esq. Seyfarth Synopsis: In another signal that the Board may overturn the Obama Board’s decision in Purple Communications allowing employees to use their employer’s email systems to communicate about wages, hours, working conditions and union issues, the Board recently published a letter reiterating its decision to reconsider Purple Communications and invited comment from the public on the standard the Board should apply in these cases. Under Purple Communications, 361 NLRB 1050…
By: Christopher W. Kelleher and John T. Ayers-Mann Seyfarth Synopsis: Though the NLRA provides robust protections for striking employees, the Board’s decision in Consolidated Communications demonstrates some of the limits of those protections. On October 2, 2018, the NLRB held that inherently dangerous acts calculated to intimidate do not fall within the broad scope of the NLRA’s protections. The National Labor Relations Board, in a recent decision, has provided further guidance on the limits of…
By: Samuel Sverdlov and Howard Wexler Seyfarth Synopsis: The E-Verify program has become a controversial topic in the political arena and throughout workplaces nationwide.  Last month, the NLRB held, amongst other things, that an employer violated the NLRA by unilaterally enrolling in the E-Verify program without first bargaining with the union. Immigration law has long been at the forefront of political discourse in the United States.  One question that employers continue to grapple with is…