Striking  By: Marshall B. Babson, Esq., Katherine Mendez, Esq., and Brian Bienias, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Several organizations are planning nationwide strikes and boycott activities on February 16-17 to oppose Trump Administration and Republican policies. Employers impacted by these activities should be mindful of employees’ rights before responding.

Several labor and activist groups are calling for national general strikes and boycotts this week to protest policies enacted and proposed by the new Trump Administration and the Republican Congress.

Thursday, February 16: A Day Without Immigrants. The first action, “A Day Without Immigrants,” is currently scheduled for this Thursday, February 16.  The campaign, promoted in Spanish and English, has been spread through Facebook, fliers, and word of mouth and calls on immigrants and their supporters “not to go to work, open businesses, shop, eat in restaurants, buy gas, go to classes, or send children to school.” While the campaign originally focused on the Washington D.C. area, the campaign is expected to spread nationwide. A similar action in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this past Monday, February 13 drew thousands of protesters.

Friday, February 17: National General Strike. Then, on Friday, February 17, a group called Strike4Democracy has called for a national general strike and plans on “over 100 strike actions across the United States, and beyond.” The campaign calls for participants to forgo work on Friday and, instead “plan or take part in an event in your community” and “occupy public space with positive messages of resistance and solidarity.”

The organizers do not plan on stopping there. They intend to use Friday’s national general strike to “build towards a series of mass strikes,” with another mass strike planned on March 8, 2017, another on May 1, 2017 (May Day), and “a heightening resistance throughout the summer.”

So, what does this mean for employers?

While these general strikes and those planned for the future could wreak havoc on an employer’s operations — as employees fail to report to work or leave shifts early — the National Labor Relations Act provides protection for employees who engage in political advocacy that relates specifically to job concerns and to other workplace issues.

Employers have the right to enforce “neutrally applied work rules” to restrict employees from leaving work for political activities unrelated to workplace concerns. As discussed above, whether an employee’s actions are protected or unprotected turns on whether the employee’s absence relates to activity directed at “terms and conditions of employment” which the employer controls or to workplace concerns that affect all employees. If the absence is due to political activity totally unrelated to workplace concerns, employees could be subject to discipline, although discipline is not necessarily the prudent course to take.

Given the myriad issues to be addressed in these strikes, from immigration reform to minimum wage laws to worker’s rights, employers may be hard pressed to show that employees who participate in these strikes in lieu of working have engaged in unprotected activity. Employers could find themselves in further “hot water” with the NLRB if they discipline employees for absenteeism or tardiness related to the employees’ political activities.

If your company is affected by any of the strike activity this week or in the months ahead, contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Labor & Employee Relations Team.

Interrogation By: Christopher W. Kelleher, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The NLRB held that American Medical Response of Southern California (“AMR”) did not violate an employee’s rights during a police investigation of an EMT’s gun violence threat by not providing the EMT with a union representative.

In November 2015, an EMT working in San Bernardino County, CA learned that the Operations Manager planned to fire the EMT’s girlfriend. The EMT responded by telling his coworker, “if things go the way they are looking, I’ll come shoot everyone here.” Concerned, the coworker reported the EMT to management.   

In response, the Operations Manager drove to the nearby police department and asked an officer for guidance on how to handle the situation. The officer came to AMR’s facility, spoke with the EMT while the Operations Manager was present, and performed a threat assessment. Although the Operations Manager was present during the officer’s interview with the EMT, the Operations Manager did not ask any questions during the interview. The Company later decided to terminate the EMT’s employment.

The EMT filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that AMR had refused his requests for union representation during the interview. Under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 256 (1975), an employee represented by a union has the right to request that a union representative be present during an investigatory interview which the employee reasonably believes could result in disciplinary action. In order to invoke this right, the employee must make a request for union representation. It is not the employer’s responsibility to inform the employee of his Weingarten rights.

Contrary to the EMT’s assertions, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that the EMT did not request union representation, and thus, was not entitled to union representation. The ALJ’s findings were based in part on not crediting the EMT’s testimony. In making this finding, the ALJ noted some inconsistencies in his story. The ALJ also noted that on several occasions in the past, the EMT had requested and had been given union representation. Furthermore, the ALJ found that because the EMT demonstrated a thorough knowledge of his Weingarten rights, it did not make sense that he waited to complain about not receiving union representation until three months after the interview — when he filed his charge.

Notably, the ALJ also found that the EMT was not entitled to union representation because the interview was not an “investigative interview” for which the Weingarten rights applied. Rather, the interview was a police interrogation. Therefore, the EMT’s Weingarten rights did not apply.  Thus, not every meeting with employees constitutes an investigative interview under Weingarten, and even if an investigative interview does take place, the employee must actually request union representation to invoke his Weingarten rights.

View of United States Supreme Court Building, Washington, DC.

By: Robert J. Carty, Jr., Esq.

As our regular readers already know, the Supreme Court is poised to decide one of the most contentious issues facing the wage-and-hour world—namely, whether class- and collective-action waivers render workplace arbitration agreements unenforceable.

Well, it seemed poised until today.  Now we need to sit tight until at least October.

First, a quick recap.  A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court consolidated and granted certiorari in three appeals, one each from the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.  As consolidated, these cases ask the Court to decide whether Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (which protects certain “concerted activities”) prohibits class- and collective-action waivers in workplace arbitration agreements—even though the Federal Arbitration Act strongly favors such provisions.

Given the timing of the Court’s actions, many had speculated that oral argument would occur this April, likely leading to a decision by the end of June.  Today, however, the Court notified the parties that oral argument will be scheduled in the 2017 term, which begins this October.  In other words, we don’t expect this issue to be decided until sometime after argument—and the earliest argument will occur is October.

We can’t be sure why the Court has decided to set oral argument in the next term, but we can make an educated guess that the new Administration and the pending nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch played a role.  Regardless, we have our eye on the situation and will keep you updated as things develop.  Stay tuned.

Striking  By: Bryan R. Bienias, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the NLRB, holding that the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that the hospital group unfairly preferred nonunion workers when filling nonunion positions.

The National Labor Relations Board may not invalidate employment policies that accomplish legitimate goals in a nondiscriminatory manner “merely because the Board might see other ways to do it.” Such was the message the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit delivered to the Board in Southcoast Hospitals Group v. NLRB, No. 15-2146 (1st Cir. 2017).

The Court ruled that the Board lacked substantial evidence in finding that the hospital group discriminated against union members by giving nonunion workers a hiring preference for nonunion positions. The union’s contract granted union employees a similar preference when applying for union positions. According to Southcoast, the policy was intended to “level the playing field” and stave off staffing complaints by its nonunion workforce.

The Board argued that the policy tilted the playing field too far in favor of nonunion employees, claiming the number of nonunion positions “pales in comparison” to the number of positions covered by the union hiring policy and that nonunion hiring preference covered two facilities, as opposed to the single facility covered by the union policy.

This was not enough, the Court ruled. While the Court acknowledged that the nonunion policy covered more positions than the union hiring policy, union workers were not disproportionately harmed, given that the ratio of covered positions to covered employees was substantially the same under both policies. Likewise, nonunion employees had to compete with workers from two hospitals, as opposed to union workers’ need to compete only with workers from one hospital.

The Court also noted that the Board ignored other aspects of the hiring policies that still leave union members at a comparative advantage, namely that union seniority trumps qualifications for open union positions, while Southcoast is required to choose “the best qualified” candidate for a nonunion position, regardless of seniority.

Employer Takeaway

Employers must often walk a fine line in order to apply different policies to union and nonunion employees in a non-discriminatory manner. However, as the Court in Southcoast makes clear, this does not handcuff employers from attempting to “level the playing field” by giving certain advantages to nonunion employees, so long as the policy does not disproportionately harm union employees and is supported by a legitimate and substantial business justification.

NLRB 2By: Marjorie C. Soto, Esq., Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq., and Mary Kay Klimesh, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Congressional Committee Head Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Subcommittee Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) ask NLRB General Counsel Griffin to either immediately rescind his January 31 report regarding the purported rights of faculty, students and scholarship athletes, or “step aside as general counsel.”

Yesterday, we reported that Richard F. Griffith, Jr., the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, issued a report titled “General Counsel’s Report on the Statutory Rights of University Faculty and Students in the Unfair Labor Practice Context.” A copy of  yesterday’s Management Alert can be found here.

It did not take long for Griffin’s Report to catch the attention of Congress. Yesterday, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, jointly issued a response to the Report, calling for Griffin to “rescind his memorandum immediately” or  “step aside as general counsel.”   In support of their request, the Representatives jointly stated that the “memorandum puts the interests of union leaders over America’s students, and it has the potential to create significant confusion at college campuses across the nation.”

Even if Griffin refuses to withdraw the Report, it reasonably can be anticipated that the General Counsel appointed by President Trump at the conclusion of Griffin’s appointment in November, or the soon-to-be Trump appointed Board majority, will revisit not only the Report but also the underlying decisions in Pacific Lutheran, Columbia and Northwestern.

NLRB By: Marjorie C. Soto, Esq., Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq., and Mary Kay Klimesh, Esq. 

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In a last minute attempt to leave his mark on the NLRB, the Board’s outgoing General Counsel issued a report attempting to expand the rights of university faculty and students, including scholarship athletes under the National Labor Relations Act.

Just months before the conclusion of his four-year term, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), issued a report titled “General Counsel’s Report on the Statutory Rights of University Faculty and Students in the Unfair Labor Practice Context.”

The January 31, 2017 Report was issued with the stated intent to serve as a “guide for employers, labor unions, and employees that summarizes Board law regarding NLRA employee status in the university setting and explains how the Office of the General Counsel will apply these representational decisions in the unfair labor practice arena.” The decisions covered by the Report – – Pacific Lutheran University, Columbia University, and Northwestern University–all involved efforts of individuals to obtain representation by a union.

University Faculty

In Pacific Lutheran, the Board established a new test for determining when it would take jurisdiction over religious colleges and universities.  According to the GC, the Board “will…seek redress for unfair labor practices committed by religious schools against individual faculty member discriminatees who the university does not hold out as performing a specific role in creating and maintaining the university’s religious and educational environment.”

As a practical matter, this means that the GC believes that the faculty who are able to seek union representation because they were “not hired to advance the school’s religious purposes,” also are protected by the Act’s prohibition against discrimination for engaging in protected concerted activities. By implication, this may mean that faculty who are hired to advance a school’s religious purposes are not protected.

The GC also provided his analysis of the standard articulated in Pacific Lutheran regarding the managerial status of faculty members.  Specifically, the GC distinguished between managerial faculty (those who “formulate and effectuate management policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of their employer”) and non-managerial faculty (those whose decision-making is limited to “routine discharge of professional duties in projects to which they have been assigned…”).

The GC concluded that, in the unfair labor practice context, a “complaint will not issue against a university if [the Board] determine[s] that an asserted discriminatee is a managerial employee under the Board’s Pacific Lutheran test.”  He added, however, that even when the Board refuses to process a certification petition, it will still conduct an individualized analysis of the discriminatee’s employment position to determine whether that individual exercised sufficient managerial authority to exempt him from the NLRA.

University Students

Student Assistants. Here, the GC briefly summarized the Columbia University decision, stating that the Board “applied the statutory language of the [NLRA] and longstanding common-law principles to settle the issue of statutory coverage for graduate student employees, determining that student assistants are employees under the NLRA.” The GC relied on the 2000 NYU decision to conclude that graduate students met the common-law test of agency because they “‘perform their duties for, and under the control of’ their university, which in turn pays them for those services…” Similarly, the GC applied this precedent to the unfair labor practices context, concluding that, in his opinion, student assistants are well within the ambit of the NLRA and can therefore organize and receive its protections.

Non-Academic University Workers. The GC stated that, as to university students who are performing non-academic university work (e.g. maintenance or cafeteria workers, lifeguards, campus tour guides, etc.), they are “clearly covered by the NLRA and, as with student assistants, [the Board] will analyze unfair labor practice charges involving non-academic student employees accordingly.” In reaching this conclusion, the GC reasoned that the non-academic university worker category presented an easier question than the student assistants in Columbia as, in his opinion, under the common law agency test, there is no issue of whether or not the work performed by the student employee is “primarily educational work.”

Hospital House Staff. With respect to “hospital house staff” (medical interns, residents, and fellows), the GC concluded that they would “continue to be protected as employees under the NLRA, and [the Board] will continue to process unfair labor practice charges involving those employees.”  In reaching this conclusion, the GC reasoned that, just because certain hospital house staff members also happened to be students did not mean that they were exempt from the coverage of the NLRA. He cited the Boston Medical decision, which held that “nothing in the [NLRA] suggests that persons who are students but also employees should be exempted from the coverage and protection of the [NLRA].”

University Football Players. Here, the GC admittedly limits his analysis to the application of the statutory definition of employee and the common-law agency test to find that Division I FBS scholarship football players are employees under the NLRA, and therefore have the rights and protections of that Act. Referring to the Board’s decision in Northwestern, the GC expressly stated that it would be inappropriate for the Report to attempt resolve the sometimes “divisive” questions relating to whether student athletes may organize under the Act.

Conclusion

With Mr. Griffin’s four-year term ending later this year, it is likely that the new GC will want to revisit some or all of the Report. The soon to be Trump-appointed  majority of the Board likely will revisit not only the Report, but also the decisions in Pacific Lutheran, Columbia and Northwestern.

NLRB 2On Thursday, January 26, 2017, the NLRB announced that President Trump named Board Member Philip A. Miscimarra to serve as Acting Chairman of the NLRB.  Miscimarra will replace former Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce, who will continue as a Board Member.  Pearce’s term expires on August 27, 2018.  Acting Chairman Miscimarra’s current term expires on December 16, 2017.

The Board currently has three members: Board Member Lauren McFerran being the third member.  Her term expires on December 16, 2019. Two Board Member seats are currently vacant.  President Trump gets to nominate these two members.  The two nominees must then be confirmed by the Senate.

Prior to the Board, Acting Chairman Miscimarra practiced labor and employment law as a partner with Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.   Prior to Morgan Lewis, Miscimarra was a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

 

By: Kyllan B. Kershaw, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: This weekend Kentucky became the 27th state to pass right-to-work legislation, eliminating the right of unions to collect compelled-dues payments and providing a significant boost to employers hoping to operate union-free.

On Saturday, January 7th, Kentucky’s Governor signed Kentucky House Bill 1 into law, making Kentucky the 27th state in the country to adopt right-to-work legislation and the last state in the South to pass such a law. The new legislation is effective immediately but carves out an exemption for existing collective bargaining agreements.

The law bars making union membership a condition of employment and allows workers in union shops to opt out of paying union dues without fear of losing their jobs. The law also prohibits public employees from going out on strike.

Kentucky House Bill 1 was introduced on January 3 and fast-tracked by Kentucky House Republican leaders, passing by a vote of 58-39 on January 5th and pushed through the full State Senate in a special Saturday session on January 7th. A major factor motivating Kentucky Republicans who introduced the law is that Kentucky’s unemployment figures lag behind those of neighboring right-to-work states such as Indiana and Wisconsin. Likewise, while Kentucky’s overall union membership rates remain on par with the U.S. average, private-sector union membership rates in Kentucky are slightly above the national average. For example, in 2016, 11 percent of employees in Kentucky belonged to a union (right around the national average of 11.1%), while Kentucky’s private-sector employee membership rates hovered slightly above 8 percent, higher than the national average of 6.7 percent.

Overall, right-to-work states are considered more favorable to employers. Specifically, employers in non-right-to-work states experience a higher density of unionization and increased organizing efforts. Likewise, employers in non-right-to-work states often experience greater employment costs associated with doing business. For example, employers in non-right-to-work states: (a) generally pay higher wage rates and benefits to employees, regardless of the employer’s union status; and (b) are subject to increased government regulation of employment, including pro-employee laws and onerous regulations, as unions in these states often possess greater political capital and have additional lobbying capabilities as a result of compelled-dues payments.

Kentucky House Bill 1 follows the 6th Circuit’s recent affirmation of the rights of Kentucky counties to pass right-to-work legislation based on Kentucky’s home-rule powers. See UAW v. Hardin Cty., Docket No. 16-5246 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016). Not surprisingly, Kentucky House Bill 1 restricts the right of local governments to enforce an ordinance contrary to the provisions of the new state law.

Kentucky’s right-to-work legislation comes as Republicans control the state government in Kentucky for the first time in nearly a century. States such as Missouri and Iowa may follow Kentucky’s lead, where Democrats suffered losses in November and state lawmakers have expressed interest in pursuing such laws and creating more employer-friendly climates.

Gavel

By: Ronald J. Kramer, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Seventh Circuit  finds employer still obligated to contribute to benefit funds for the life of the CBA even though the employees decertified the union.

Employers often assume that when their employees decertify a union, that any obligations an employer had under the operative collective bargaining agreement would disappear. No union, no contract.  Right?

Wrong! In Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund v. Cleveland Quarry, Case Nos. 15-2628, -3221, -3861, 16-1870 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016), employees in three separate IUOE bargaining units of the Company voted to decertify in 2013.  At the time, the Union and the Company were party to five year collective bargaining agreements expiring in 2015.  The Company assumed the decertification of the Union, which allowed it to set its own terms and conditions of employment, and ended any contractual obligation to contribute to the multiemployer welfare and pension funds (“Funds”).

The Funds sued, and after they were successful in district court the Company appealed. The Seventh Circuit recognized that the collective bargaining agreements were unenforceable as to the Union, but found nevertheless that the Funds had the right under ERISA to bring a suit for delinquent contributions under 29 U.S.C. § 1145.  The Court based its decision on the idea that when the Funds promised to provide a level of benefits to the employees (presumably by allowing the employer to participate in the Funds under the terms of the CBAs), that created a binding contractual promise.  The Court also recognized that the Funds were third-party beneficiaries to the CBAs and thus entitled to enforce them even if the Union could no longer do so.  “[S]o far as benefit law is concerned the employees were still working ‘under the terms of’ the collective bargaining agreement.”

The Seventh Circuit is not alone in finding that an employer’s contractual obligations to participate in multiemployer funds can survive decertification, withdrawals of recognition, and disclaimers of interest. But there is a competing view.  The Ninth Circuit has recognized that when a bargaining unit ceases to exist, be it by decertification or contract repudiation given the existence of a one person bargaining unit, any existing contract becomes void, not voidable, ending the employer’s obligation to contribute to employee benefit plans. Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Development, 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995) (contract repudiation); Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n v. West Coast Sheet Metal Co., 954 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. 1992) (decertification case were the court held “that the renewal contract became void prospectively as of the decertification of the Union”).  Notably, the Seventh Circuit did not address the Circuit split.

Employers lucky enough to have employees decertify prior to contract expiration cannot assume their obligations to the funds necessarily end. Consult counsel before making any rash moves you may live to regret.

NLRB By: Ashley K. Laken, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: NLRB rules that the operators of the Detroit Masonic Temple unlawfully refused to bargain with a union that represented various engineers and maintenance workers at the temple, even though none of the remaining members of the bargaining unit were union members.

NLRB Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and McFerran unanimously ruled that the Masonic Temple Association of Detroit and 450 Temple, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with Local 324 of the International Union of Operating Engineers for a successor collective bargaining agreement. Masonic Temple Association of Detroit, 364 NLRB No. 150 (Nov. 29, 2016).

Facts

The Union had represented employees at the temple since approximately 1968. The most recent collective bargaining agreement covering the temple expired in early 2010, and the Association began operating the temple shortly thereafter.  At the time, there were approximately ten members in the bargaining unit, two of whom were dues-paying Union members.  In mid-December 2010, the Union sent the Association a written request to bargain over a new CBA.  The Association did not respond, and in January 2011, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Association for refusing to bargain in good faith.  The parties entered into a settlement agreement, with the Association agreeing to recognize the Union and bargain in good faith as a successor employer, and they met approximately once per month between January 2011 and May 2011.

After the last negotiation session in May 2011, the Union was told that a new unnamed entity would take over management of the temple and that the Union should wait until the changeover to negotiate a CBA with that entity. In the fall of 2011, the Detroit Masonic Temple Theater Company took over management of the Temple, and the Union held one negotiation session with that entity in January 2012.  The Association and the Theater Company ended their relationship in November 2012, and shortly thereafter, 450 Temple Inc. took over management of the temple.

From late 2012 until January 2015, the Union made multiple attempts to restart negotiation discussions, but in January 2015, the President of the Association and 450 allegedly told the Union that because Michigan had become a right-to-work state and there were no longer any Union members working for the temple, he did not feel it necessary to and would not bargain with the Union. In response, the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge at issue in this case.

Board’s Decision

An administrative law judge found that the Association and 450 were a single employer, in part because the Association had 100% ownership of 450 and they operated out of the same office, and no exceptions were filed in response to that ruling. Thus, the Board’s decision did not address this issue.

Regarding the merits of the charge, the Association and 450 argued that they did not violate the Act because the Union was not the exclusive representative of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit, pointing to the fact that none of the employees in the bargaining unit were Union members. The Administrative Law Judge (and the Board) disagreed, observing that an employer may rebut the continuing presumption of an incumbent union’s majority status and unilaterally withdraw recognition only on a showing that the union has in fact lost the support of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, and that bargaining unit employees’ union membership status is not determinative of the employer’s obligation to bargain.  In other words, evidence of a desire to withdraw from membership in the union is insufficient proof that the union has in fact lost the support of a majority of the unit.

The Board found that there was no evidence of any action taken by the bargaining unit employees to express their lack of support for the Union, such as a petition to decertify the Union or statements by the employees that they no longer wanted to be represented by the Union. The Board ordered the Association and 450 to bargain with the Union on request and to post a notice to employees.

Employer Takeaway

The decision highlights the fact that there is a distinction between an employee’s desire to be a member of a union and his or her desire to be represented by a union.  Even if the majority of employees in a bargaining unit are not union members, that does not necessarily mean the union has lost its majority support.  Employers that have questions about the status of an incumbent union’s support should connect with their labor attorney to ensure they do not engage in conduct that would run afoul of the Act.