Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2021 | FIRST, VERIFY

June 17, 2021

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2021

1.President Joe Biden has nominated union-side attorney Gwynne Wilcox to fill a vacant seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Wilcox is a partner at the union-side labor and employment firm Levy Ratner P.C. Among other clients, Wilcox has represented Fight for $15, the union-affiliated group that has advocated for increases in the minimum wage. As with prior NLRB nominees, Wilcox’s client list is likely to be an issue during her confirmation hearings and, if confirmed, in cases involving her former clients. If the Senate confirms Wilcox, the three Republican members of the NLRB will remain in the majority, with Wilcox and Chairperson Lauren McFerran constituting the Democrat-appointed minority. Republican Member William Emanuel’s term expires on August 27, 2021. Upon nomination and Senate approval of another Biden nominee, the NLRB majority will flip from Republican to Democrat.


2. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has moved to rescind a Trump-era rule that would have increased            oversight of union finances. The DOL issued a proposal on May 26 that would reverse the rule, which required unions with $250,000 in annual revenue to disclose more information about their stakes in credit unions, their trusts, strike funds, and other assets and investments. The Trump Administration promulgated the rule, but enforcement was halted in March 2021, before the deadline for unions to file paperwork with the DOL demonstrating compliance with the rule. Biden Administration officials have stated that the reporting requirement was partly duplicative of existing reporting rules. Trump Administration officials and some business leaders cited a number of financial scandals involving union officials as evidence of the need for more transparency in union finances.



3. According to a Bloomberg Law report, it takes an average of 409 days for the parties to negotiate a first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) at a newly organized workplace. The report examined 330 contracts spanning 2004 to the present to determine the average amount of time that elapses between a union’s election win being certified by the NLRB and the date a contract is signed. It examined the results by industry, with healthcare and social assistance contracts taking the longest to negotiate (528 days on average), while professional and business service contracts took the least time, roughly nine months on average (269 days). While the average for all contracts was 409 days, the median length of time between certification and a contract was 356 days.



4. A U.S. District Court ruled that a “broadly written” CBA provision compelled arbitration over the elimination of retiree health benefits, rejecting the employer’s argument that retirees are not employees and therefore are not covered by the labor agreement. Verso Corp. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, No. 3:19-cv-0006 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2021). The employer and the administrators of the union health and welfare plan announced the elimination of certain retiree health plan benefits. The union filed grievances alleging the move violated the CBA. The union moved in district court to compel arbitration, but the court dismissed the motion. Following the dismissal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in USW v. LLFlex, 19-5464 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021), determined a CBA’s “narrowly written clause” on healthcare benefits meant arbitration over such benefits was limited to a small category of healthcare disputes. The union moved the district court to reconsider its decision in light of LLFlex. Granting reconsideration and reversing its earlier decision, the district court found the provision in the employer’s CBA was written far more broadly than the provision at issue in LLFlex. That breadth meant the provision could be read to cover disputes over retirees’ benefits, meaning the parties could be required to arbitrate their dispute.



5. The NLRB held an employer violated the NLRA by enforcing a prohibition against recording conversations at work, but the agency did not require the employer to rescind the rule in question. AT&T Mobility, 05-CA-178637 (May 3, 2021). Applying the framework for evaluating the lawfulness of workplace rules set in Boeing Company, 365 NLRB 154 (2017), the NLRB found the employer unlawfully warned a union steward against recording a disciplinary meeting and future such recordings, activity the NLRA generally protects because it involves action taken by one employee on behalf of others. Despite finding the employer’s application of the rule was unlawful, the NLRA found the employer’s no-recording policy was lawful on its face and need not be rescinded, as the rule could be applied lawfully in the future. In so ruling, the Board overruled part of its 2004 decision in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which would have required the Board to automatically find the employer’s rule unlawful on its face to the extent it could be “reasonably construed” as limiting employees’ rights under the NLRA.



Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/top-five-labor-law-developments-may-2021


You might also like

A group of construction workers are standing next to each other on a construction site.

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

October 28, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S.Lowenstein
construction industry risk management

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

October 21, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur.
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management

During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

October 13, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: