Don’t Get Stuck Paying Another Employer’s Overtime Or Other Backpay

January 13, 2020

No business wants to get hit with a bill or judgement for unpaid overtime or other wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). It’s even worse when the order to pay is for back pay another business owed but didn’t pay. New FLSA joint employer regulations released today update the rules about when your business could get stuck paying another business’ backpay. That’s why all U.S. employers should re-evaluate their potential minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping and other Fair Labor Standards Acts (“FLSA”) liability exposure from work performed by workers employed by subcontractors or contractors, staffing, leasing, manpower and workforce and other separate business entities in light of the new Final Rule: Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“Final Rule”) on determining joint employer status under the FLSA released by the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“Labor Department”).  The Labor Department released a copy of the Final Rule to the public today today (January 13, 2020) in anticipation of its scheduled official publication in the Federal Register on January 16, 2019.

Joint Employer Liability Long Standing FLSA Risk

Many businesses and their management are unaware that if their business meets the definition of a “joint employer” for purposes of the FLSA, their businesses could be required to pay unpaid wages and penalties another business owes for failing to pay minimum wage or overtime or other FLSA violations. even though their business never directly employed those workers.  This is because the FLSA also makes business that are “joint employers” as defined for purposes of the FLSA  jointly and severally liable with the direct employer for proper payment of wages and other compliance with the FLSA.  The FLSA requires covered employers to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage for every hour worked and overtime for every hour worked over 40 in a workweek. To be liable for paying minimum wage or overtime, an individual or entity must be an “employer,” which the FLSA defines in Section 3(d) to include “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee[.]” Under the FLSA, an employee may have—in addition to his or her employer—one or more joint employers. A joint employer is any additional “person” (i.e., an individual or entity) who is jointly and severally liable with the employer for the employee’s wages under the applicable Labor Department regulations.

While both the Labor Department and private litigants have used the joint employer rules and precedent to nail businesses for other employer’s wage and hour liability frequently for the past sixty plus years, Obama Administration changes in the Labor Department’s interpretation and enforcement of the joint employer rule have significantly broadened the scope of relationships found to constitute joint employment to include a broad range of subcontractor and other business relationships not historically recognized as triggering joint employer liability.  Historically, joint employer determinations were reached by applying highly subjective, fact specific analysis heavily reliant upon decades of court decisions which required some evidence that the alleged joint employer possessed or exercised some control over the employees to support the finding of joint employment.   Under these historical tests, mere benefit from work performed by individuals employed by another employer did not establish a presumption, much less proof of joint employment.

During the Obama Administration, however, the Department of Labor both stepped up its efforts to identify and enforce these joint employer provisions and concurrently without formally issuing new regulations adopted interpretive and enforcement guidelines for finding joint employer status that that significantly broadened the employment relationships that the Labor Department treated as joint employers in a manner that presumed the existence of a joint employment relationship whenever the alleged joint employer benefitted from the performance of work even when the facts showed little or any evidence that the alleged joint employer possessed or exercised any control over the employee or the details of his work.  As a consequences, construction and other businesses uses contractors, health care organizations, and a host of other entities were surprised to be nailed with wage and hour liabilities arising from work performed by subcontractors, contractors, and other businesses including overtime liability attributable to work performed for the benefit of other customers of the employer.

Final Joint Employer Rule Changes Rules Effective March 16, 2020

Prompted by the Trump Administration’s broader effort to roll back these and other Obama Era pro-labor rulemaking and enforcement, the new Final Rule seeks to restore and reaffirm the requirement of evidence of the possession of authority or exercise of some traditional employer control by the alleged joint employer.  Scheduled to take effect on March 16, 2020, the new Final Rule will continue to recognize two potential scenarios where an employee may have one or more joint employers based on a highly subjective analysis of the factual realities of an alleged joint employer with another business or businesses under two scenarios:

  • The employee has an employer who suffers, permits, or otherwise employs the employee to work, but another individual or entity simultaneously benefits from that work (“Scenario One”); versus
  • One employer employs an employee for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same employee for a separate set of hours in the same workweek (“Scenario Two”).

The Final Rule modifies and clarifies the Labor Department’s historical joint employer rule as it relates to the determination of joint employment status in Scenario One situations but leaves substantially unchanged its existing rules on joint employer determinations in Scenario Two situations.

Finally, the Final Rule provides several examples of how the Department’s joint employer guidance should be applied in various factual circumstances

Final Rule Modifications To Existing Rules On Joint Employment in Scenario One Situations

Under the Final Rule in a Scenario One situation under which an employee performs work for the employer that simultaneously benefits another individual or entity, the Final Rule adopts a four-factor balancing test to determine whether the potential joint employer is directly or indirectly controlling the employee, assessing whether the potential joint employer:

  • hires or fires the employee;
  • supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
  • determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
  • maintains the employee’s employment records.

Businesses should keep in mind that proof of the exercise of exercise direct control over these details of employment of an employee is not required for a finding of joint employment. Indirect exercise of control is sufficient.  Examples of indirect exercise of control recognized in the Final Regulations as supporting joint employer liability include control over an employee through mandatory directions to another employer that directly control the employee. However, indirect control does not include the direct employer’s voluntary decision to accommodate the potential joint employer’s request, recommendation, or suggestion. Similarly, acts that incidentally impact the employee do not indicate joint employer status. For example, a restaurant could request lower fees from its cleaning contractor, which, if agreed to, could impact the wages of the cleaning contractor’s employees. However, this request would not constitute an exercise of indirect control over the employee’s rate of payment.

Like under the prior rules and standards, whether a person is a joint employer under the new standards established in the Final Rule will continue to depend upon all the facts in a particular case, and the appropriate weight to give each factor will vary depending on the circumstances. Moreover, all of these factors need not be present for joint employment to exist.  However, the Final Rule states the potential joint employer’s maintenance of the employee’s employment records alone will not lead to a finding of joint employer status.  For purposes of its provisions, the Final Rule defines the “employment records” referred to in the fourth factor to mean only those records, such as payroll records, that reflect, relate to, or otherwise record information pertaining to the hiring or firing, supervision and control of the work schedules or conditions of employment, or determining the rate and method of payment of the employee.

Additionally, the Final Rule also notes that additional factors may also be relevant in determining whether another person is a joint employer in this situation, but only when they show whether the potential joint employer is exercising significant control over the terms and conditions of the employee’s work.

The Final Rule also identifies factors that are not relevant to the determination of FLSA joint employer status. For example, the Final Rule specifies that whether the employee is economically dependent on the potential joint employer, including factors traditionally used to establish whether a particular worker is a bona fide independent contractor (e.g., the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, their investment in equipment and materials, etc.), are not relevant to determine joint employer liability. Economic dependence was an evidentiary factor promoted as evidence of joint employment in several Obama Administration era enforcement actions.

The Final Rule also identifies certain other factors that do not make joint employer status more or less likely under the Act which had been relied upon by the Labor Department under the Obama Administration era interpretation of the FLSA, including:

  • operating as a franchisor or entering into a brand and supply agreement, or using a similar business model;
  • the potential joint employer’s contractual agreements with the employer requiring the employer to comply with its legal obligations or to meet certain standards to protect the health or safety of its employees or the public;
  • the potential joint employer’s contractual agreements with the employer requiring quality control standards to ensure the consistent quality of the work product, brand, or business reputation; and
  • the potential joint employer’s practice of providing the employer with a sample employee handbook, or other forms, allowing the employer to operate a business on its premises (including “store within a store” arrangements), offering an association health plan or association retirement plan to the employer or participating in such a plan with the employer, jointly participating in an apprenticeship program with the employer, or any other similar business practice.

Additionally, the Final Rule makes clear that a finding of joint employer status in Scenario One situations must be based on an actual exercise of control by the alleged joint employer.  In this respect, the Final Rule provides that although an individual or entity’s power, ability, or reserved contractual right to exercise control relating to one or more of the factors may be relevant in determining whether they are an FLSA joint employer, such power, ability, or reserved contractual rights are not in themselves sufficient to establish FLSA joint employer status without some actual exercise of control.

Final Rule Retains Existing Rules On Joint Employment In Scenario Two Situations

The Final Rule did not make any substantive changes to the standard for determining joint employer liability in Scenario Two situations. If the employers are acting independently of each other and are disassociated with respect to the employment of the employee, the Final Rule continues to provide that each employer may disregard all work performed by the employee for the other employer in determining its liability under the FLSA. However, if the factual realities show that the employers are sufficiently associated with respect to the employment of the employee, the Final Rule continues to state that the two businesses are joint employers and must aggregate the hours worked for each for purposes of determining if they are in compliance.

For purposes of the Scenario Two analysis, the Final Rule provides that employers generally will be sufficiently associated if there is an arrangement between them to share the employee’s services, the employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer in relation to the employee, or they share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.  Employers using manpower, staffing, employee leasing or other shared or part time workforces should keep in mind that a finding that their business is a joint employer with the supplier of the workers can result in liability for their business associated both for hours of work performed for the benefit of their business as well as any work the employee worked for another client of the supplier business.  As these shared workforces often perform work for several competitors, ironically this often means that a joint employer often ends up payment overtime liability attributable to unpaid overtime or other wages performed for a competitor business or businesses that also are clients of the same partial workforce supplier.

Businesses Should Act To Assess & Mitigate Joint Employer & Other FLSA Liability

The Labor Departments that its adoption of the revisions to the joint employer rule made by the Final Rule will add greater certainty regarding what business practices may result in joint employer status: and promote greater uniformity among court decisions by providing a clearer interpretation of FLSA joint employer status.  While the clarifications may help businesses to better predict certain relationships and arrangements that carry a higher risk of joint employer liability exposure, businesses must keep in mind that joint employer determinations under the Final Rule will continue to turn on highly subjective analysis of facts and circumstances that existing precedent suggests often finds the requisite evidence to find a joint employer relationship in many circumstances surprising to many business owners even taking into account the modifications made by the Final Rule,  For this reason, virtually all businesses generally will want to critically evaluate their existing and prospective relationships for potential joint employer liability under the FLSA in light of the Final Regulations.

Businesses should look to the guidance in the new Final Rule initially to evaluate whether their existing or prospective relationships meet, or could be restructured to meet all of the requisites to avoid or reduce the risk of findings of joint employer status.  When possible, businesses should seek to structure their contractual relationships and business dealings with other businesses to fit as closely as possible with those arrangements that the new Final Regulations identify as not constituting joint employer relationships in form and operation.  When engaging in these efforts, businesses need to look beyond their contractual agreements to examine the factual realities of their relationships with other businesses realistically based upon a clear understanding of the historical precedent to avoid mischaracterizing their relationships and their associated risks.  For added protection, businesses also should consider seeking contractual representations of compliance, coupled with requirements that other businesses whose employment practices could create joint employment risk provide records and other documentation needed to verify compliance and defend against potential joint employer liability claims.

Concurrently, businesses looking at FLSA joint employer liability risk management also should keep in mind that the new Final Rule only addresses joint employer determinations under the FLSA.  This Final Rule does not address “joint employer” status or other characterizations of relationships under other federal employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, state labor, tax, unemployment, workers’ compensation or other laws, which often apply different standards for finding joint employment or other imputed liability of businesses other than the direct or nominal employer.  While different rules apply for those laws, government agencies and private litigants also increasingly successfully assert joint employer or other theories to impute liability to businesses that are not the nominal employer of workers protected by these laws.  To effectively plan for a control their broader joint employer risk, most businesses benefit from looking at their exposure holistically taking into account the potential characterization and liabilities under all of these rules concurrently.

Before beginning these assessments, businesses and their leaders are encouraged to engage an attorney experienced in FLSA and other joint employer and other worker classification laws in light of the legally sensitive evidence and discussions inherently involved in this process.  Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege helps protector limit the discoverability of sensitive discussions and work product in the event of a Labor Department investigation or litigation.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Law and Labor and Employment Law and Health Care; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, construction, manufacturing, staffing and workforce and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international employer and other management, employee benefit and other clients to assess, manage and defend joint employer and other worker classifications and practices under the FLSA and other federal and state laws including both advising and and assisting employers to minimize joint employer and other FLSA liability and defending a multitude of employers against joint employer and other FLSA and other worker classification liability. She also has been heavily involved in advocating for the Trump Administration’s restoration of more historical principles for determining and enforcing joint employer liability over the past several years.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded books, articles and other publications, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her scholarship, coaching, legislative and regulatory advocacy, leadership and mentorship on wage and hour, worker classification and a diverse range of other labor and employment, employee benefits, health and safety, education, performance management, privacy and data security, leadership and governance, and other management concerns within the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Information Security Association, the Southwest Benefits Association, and a variety of other international, national and local professional, business and civic organizations including highly regarded works on worker reclassification and joint employment liability under the FLSA and other laws published by the Bureau of National Affairs and others.  Examples of these involvements include her service as the ABA Intellectual Property Law Section Law Practice Management Committee; the ABA International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee Vice Chair-Policy; a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative and Marketing Chair; Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group and Vice Chair of its Law Practice Management Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Southwest Benefits Association Board member; past Texas Association of Business State Board Member, BACPAC Committee Meeting, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair; past Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Executive Committee; former SHRM Region IV Chair and National Consultants Forum Board Member; for WEB Network of Benefit Professionals National Board Member and Dallas Chapter Chair; former Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member; founding Board Member, past President and Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes founder for the Alliance for Health Care Excellence; former Gulf States TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator and Board member; past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Don’t Get Stuck Paying Another Employer’s Overtime Or Other Backpay | board of directors, Brokers, Construction, Corporate Compliance, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Agreement, Employment Policies, enforcement, FLSA, Hiring, Hospitality, HR, Human Resources, Job, Labor Management Relations, Management, Managment, NLRA, Salaried, Union elections | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB Restores Pre-Obama Era Union Dues Checkoff Rule

December 16, 2019

In Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019), issued today, the National Labor Relations Board overruled 2015 changes governing dues checkoff obligations when a collective bargaining agreement ends implemented during the Obama Presidency when Obama appointees dominated the Board.  Today’s decision overturns the pro-labor Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015) ruling issued by the Board when it was dominated by a Democrat majority appointed by President Barak Obama as part of his aggressively pro-union agenda.

The decision restores the previously long-standing precedent established and in place since the Board’s 1962 decision in Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962).  Under today’s decision, the Board Majority made up by Republican appointees Chairman John F. Ring and Members Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel held that an employer’s statutory obligation to check off union dues ends upon expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement containing the checkoff provision.  The majority found that dues checkoff provisions belong in the limited category of mandatory-bargaining subjects that are exclusively created by the contract and are enforceable through Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act only for the duration of the contractual obligation created by the parties. In the majority’s view, there is no independent statutory obligation to check off and remit employees’ union dues after the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement even where the contract does not contain a union-security provision.  Board Member Lauren McFerran dissented.

Today’s decision overturns a pro-labor ruling entered by the Obama-appointee dominated Board. which expanded the power of unions to compel workers to continue to pay union dues even after expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.  It is  one in a series of recent actions taken or proposed by the Board in recent months to restore the balance between management and labor upset during the Obama President when the Board was dominated by his nominees.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Law and Labor and Employment Law and Health Care; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international employer and other management clients including hospitals, health care systems and other health care organizations, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; creditors, debtors, bankruptcy trustees and other change organizations; consultants; investors; payroll and other technology and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other insurance and risk management clients; as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded books, articles and other publications, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her scholarship, coaching, legislative and regulatory advocacy, leadership and mentorship on labor and employment, employee benefits, health and safety, education, performance management, privacy and data security, leadership and governance, and other management concerns within the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Information Security Association, the Southwest Benefits Association, and a variety of other international, national and local professional, business and civic organizations.  Examples of these involvements include her service as the ABA Intellectual Property Law Section Law Practice Management Committee; the ABA International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee Vice Chair-Policy; a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative and Marketing Chair; Past Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits and Other Compensation Group and Vice Chair of its Law Practice Management Committee; Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Southwest Benefits Association Board member; past Texas Association of Business State Board Member, BACPAC Committee Meeting, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair; past Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Executive Committee; former SHRM Region IV Chair and National Consultants Forum Board Member; for WEB Network of Benefit Professionals National Board Member and Dallas Chapter Chair; former Dallas World Affairs Council Board Member; founding Board Member, past President and Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes founder for the Alliance for Health Care Excellence; former Gulf States TEGE Council Exempt Organizations Coordinator and Board member; past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

 

Comments Off on NLRB Restores Pre-Obama Era Union Dues Checkoff Rule | Corporate Compliance, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Unfair Labor Practice, Union, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

DOL Barred From Forcing Employers To Report Labor Relations Advice Under Persuader Rule Injunction

November 18, 2016

Employers paying lawyers or other labor relations consultants for advice or help deterring or responding to unionization organizing activities do not have comply with the controversial “Persuader Rule” reporting and disclosure requirements the Department Of Labor (DOL) tried to impose as part of the Obama Administration’s broader aggressive efforts to empower unions and worker organizing efforts.  That’s the effect of U.S. District Court Justice Sam Cummings’ November 16, 2016 National Federation of Independent Business v. Perez decision striking down as invalid and permanently enjoining the DOL from enforcing its regulation officially titled “Interpretation  of  the  ‘Advice’  Exemption  in  Section  203(c)  of  the  Labor-Management  Reporting  and  Disclosure  Act,” commonly referred to as the “Persuader Rule.”

Before DOL adopted the Persuader Rule, there was no requirement to when lawyers or consultants spoke with or advised employers about opposition to union efforts unless the consultant had direct contact with workers.  As revised by the Obama Administration, however, the Persuader Rule required employers and consultants—including lawyers—to report both direct contact with workers as well as advice or other help provided to employers by lawyers or consultants about persuading employees on union issues such as training supervisors or employer representatives to conduct meetings; coordinating or directing the activities of supervisors or employer representatives; establishing or facilitating employee committees; drafting, revising or providing speeches; conducting union avoidance seminars; developing or implementing employer personnel policies; involvement in disciplinary action, reward, or other targeting of workers; or various other activities designed to influence union organization matters.

Scheduled to take effect in July, 2016, DOL’s implementation and enforcement of the Persuader Rule originally was delayed by a June 27, 2016 preliminary injunction issued by Justice Cummings that nationally enjoined DOL from implementing any and all aspects of the Persuader Rule based on his findings, among other things, that the plaintiffs likely would succeed on the merits in showing the Persuader Rule:

  • Violated their right to hire and consult with an attorney, free speech, expression and association rights protected by the First Amendment;
  • Was overly broad and unacceptably vague;
  • Violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act; and
  • Would irreparably harm employers.

After a hearing on the merits, Justice Cummings ruled that the June, 2016 injunction should be made permanent.  His November 16, 2016 final order in National Federation of Independent Business v. Perez, permanently enjoins DOL from implementing the Persuader Rule nationwide.  Accordingly, employers and their labor attorneys and other labor management consultants are excused from responsibility to comply with the reporting requirements of the Persuader Rule.

About The Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,”“Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for work, teachings and publications.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares shared her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment, employee benefits, compensation, and other regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include the “Texas Payday Law” Chapter of Texas Employment Law, as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see CynthiaStamer.com  or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at SolutionsLawPress.com such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

©2016 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.  All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on DOL Barred From Forcing Employers To Report Labor Relations Advice Under Persuader Rule Injunction | Employer, Employers, HR, Labor Management Relations, Labor Management Relations, Management, NLRA, Reporting & Disclosure, Risk Management, Uncategorized, Union, Union certification, Union elections | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.25M NLRB Backpay Order Highlights Risks of Mismanaging Union Risks In Health Care & Others M&A Deals

September 23, 2012

California nursing home buyer must pay estimated $1.25 million in backpay and interest, recognize union & hire 50 employees of seller following purchase

Last week’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order requiring the buyer of a California nursing home to pay approximately $1.25 million in backpay and interest, rehire 50 employees and recognize the seller’s union reminders buyers of union-organized businesses of some of the significant risks of mishandling union-related obligations in merger and acquisition, bankruptcy and other corporate transactions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and other federal labor laws.  

Buyer’s Obligations To Honor Seller’s Collective Bargaining Obligations

Under the NLRA, new owners of a union facility that are “successors” of the seller generally must recognize and bargain with the existing union if “the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of employees hired by the new employer were represented by a recently certified bargaining agent.”  See NLRB v. Burns Sec. Servs., 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).   

In assembling its workforce, a successor employer also generally “may not refuse to hire the predecessor’s employees solely because they were represented by a union or to avoid having to recognize a union.” U.S. Marine Corp., 293 NLRB 669, 670 (1989), enfd., 944 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1991).   

Nasaky, Inc. NLRB Order

Last week’s  NLRB Order requires Nasaky, Inc., the buyer of the Yuba Skilled Nursing Center in Yuba City, California, to recognize and honor collective bargaining obligations that the seller Nazareth Enterprises owed the before the sale and rehire and pay backpay and interest to make whole 50 of the seller’s former employees who the NLRB determined Nasaky, Inc. wrongfully refused to hire when it took over the facility from the prior owner, Nazareth Enterprises. 

Before Nasaky, Inc. bought the nursing home, many of the employees at the nursing home were represented by the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Union).    After Nasaky, Inc. agreed to buy the facility but before it took control of its operations, Nasaky, Inc. advertised in the media for new workers to staff the facility and told existing employees at the facility that they must reapply to have a chance of keeping their jobs under the new ownership.  

When Nasaky, Inc. took operating control of the Facility, facility operations continued as before with the same patients receiving the same services.  The main difference was the workforce.  The new staff included 90 employees in erstwhile bargaining unit positions, of which forty were former employees of the predecessor employer and fifty were newcomers.  Nasaky, Inc. then took the position that the change in the workforce excused it from responsibility for recognizing or bargaining with the Union or honoring the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and seller Nazareth Enterprises.

When the union demanded that Nasaky, Inc. recognize the Union and honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with Nazareth Enterprises, Nasaky, Inc. refused.  Instead, Nasaky, Inc. notified the union that it would not allow the Union on its premises, would not honor the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with the seller, and did not accept any of the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment.  The Union then filed charges with the NLRB, charging that Nazareth Enterprises had breached its obligations as a successor under the NLRA.  

After NLRB Regional Director Joseph F. Frankl agreed and issued a complaint, California Administrative Law Judge Gerald Etchingham found all the allegations true based on a two-day hearing.  He rejected all of Nasaky’s explanations for why it declined to hire most of those who had worked for the previous employer.  See ALJ Decision.  Since Nasaky, Inc did not file exceptions, the NLRB ordered Nasaky, Inc. immediately to recognize and bargain with the Union, hire the former employees and make them whole.  The amount of backpay and interest is expected to approximate $1.25 million.  

Managing Labor Exposures In Business Transactions

The NLRB’s order against Nasaky, Inc. highlights some of the business and operational risks that buyers and sellers can face if labor-management relations are misperceived or mismanaged in connection with business transactions.  Because the existence of collective bargaining agreements or other labor obligations can substantially affect the operational flexibility of a buyer, buyers need to investigate and carefully evaluate the potential existence and nature of their obligations as part of their due diligence strategy before the transaction.  A well-considered understanding of whether the structure of the transaction is likely to result in the buyer being considered a successor for purposes of union organizing and collective bargaining obligations also is very important so that the buyer and seller can properly appreciate and deal with any resulting responsibilities.

Beyond the potential duty to recognize a seller’s collective bargaining obligations, buyers and sellers also should consider the potential consequences of the proposed transaction on severance, pension, health, layoff and recall and other rights and obligations that may arise.  At minimum, the existence of these responsibilities and their attendant costs are likely to impact the course of the negotiations.

When a worksite is union organized, for instance, additional obligations may arise in the handling of reductions in force or other transactions as a result of the union presence.  For example, in addition to otherwise applicable responsibilities applicable to non-union affected transaction, the Worker Adjustment Retraining Act (WARN) and other plant closing laws and/or collective bargaining agreements may impose special notification or other requirements before a reduction in force or other transaction related activities. 

Similarly, the existence of collective bargaining agreements also may trigger obligations for one or both parties to engage in collective bargaining over contemplated changes in terms and conditions of employment, to provide severance, to accellerate or fund severance, benefits or other obligations, to provide continued health or other coverage, to honor seniority, recall or other rights or deal with a host of other special contractual obligations.

Where the collective bargaining arrangements of the seller currently or in the past have included obligations to contribute to a multiemployer, collectively bargained pension or welfare plan, the buyer and seller also need to consider both the potential for withdrawal liability or other obligations and any opportunities to minimize these exposures in structuring the allocation of the arrangement. In this case, both parties need to recognize that differences exist between the federals for determining when successor liability results under the withdrawal liability rules than typically apply other labor and employment law purposes.  While buyers and sellers often presume that the stock versus assess sale distinction that typically applies for many other legal purposes will apply, this can be an expensive mistake in the case of determining a buyer’s obligation to honor the seller’s collective bargaining obligations post deal.  Likewise, buyers can be exposed to multiemployer successor liability from asset transactions, although it may be possible to mitigate or avoid such liabilities by incorporating appropriate representations in the sale documents or through other steps.  Since these multiemployer withdrawal and contribution liabilities generally attach on a controlled group basis, both parties need to properly appreciate and address these concerns early in the transaction to mitigate their risks and properly value the transaction.

In light of these and other potential labor-related risks that may affect corporate and other business transactions, parties contemplating or participating in these transactions are urged to engage and consult with competent legal counsel with specific experience in such labor management relations and multiemployer benefit plan matters early in the process.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks. Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 25 years human resource and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate labor and employment, human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally. Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer’s experience includes significant experience  advising and representing buyers, sellers, their commonly controlled and affiliated entities, lenders, bankruptcy trustees and committees and others regarding labor-management relations, employment, compensation, employee benefits and other human resources related exposures, strategies and negotiations.  She also has served as counsel to multiemployer and single employer pension, profit-sharing and other retirement, health and welfare, severance and other plans and their fiduciaries and sponsors in relation to these and other transactions.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters.  Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to cstamer@solutionslawyer.net.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2012 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

 

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Labor Risks Rising For Employers Despite NLRB Loss Of Arizona Secret Ballot Challenge

September 6, 2012

Businesses concerned about Obama Administration-backed efforts to promote its pro-labor agenda must stay diligent despite the set back suffered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its attempt to a Federal Judge to challenge state laws that purport to require secret balloting in union elections in NLRB v. State of Arizona.

Federal District Judge Frederick J. Martone handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with NLRB efforts to  strengthen labor organizing powers by restricting secret ballot protections when he rejected the NLRB claims that an Arizona Constitutional Amendment mandating secret balloting in union elections was an unconstitutional infringement on the NLRB’s powers in his September 5, 2012 decision in NLRB v. State of Arizona,  the Court left the door open for a potentially successful challenge to the Arizona secret ballot amendment in the future depending on how Arizona applies the law.  Furthermore, considered in the context of the Obama Administration’s broader pro-union regulatory and enforcement agenda, the NLRB’s challenge to the Arizona and other state secret ballot laws reminds businesses  that their operation face a minefield of mounting labor-management relations risks icluding many that create traps for management sometimes even in the case of non-union workplaces.  In light of these expanding exposures, business leaders should update their policies and practices to mitigate the rising risks while keeping a close eye on the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to expand the power of organized labor by challenging secret ballot mandates in Arizona and other states and the plethora of other pro-union regulatory and enforcement  efforts.

NLRB Attacks On Workers’ Secret Balloting Rights

Undermining worker’s secret ballot rights is a key initiative that organized labor with the support of the Obama Administration has promoted to help union organization efforts.

Secret balloting of workers in union organizing elections is designed to promote the ability of worker’s to vote their wishes free from the fear of retaliation by unions or management.  It has been a key element of the NLRA since its enactment.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace generally is a two-step process that begins with the submission by organizers to the NLRB of a petition or authorization card signed by at least 30% of the employees requesting recognition of the union. Under existing law, once the NLRB verifies that the organizers have met the petition or authorization card requirement, it generally orders a secret ballot election unless more than 50% of the workers have signed authorization cards and either:

  • The employer notifies the NLRB that it is waiving the secret ballot and voluntarily recognizing the union; or
  • The NLRB orders the employer to recognize a union based on the NLRB’s determination that the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

Since the Obama Administration came to power, however, labor with the support of the NLRB and the Obama Administration have included efforts to eliminate or get around secret balloting as part of their broader campaign to strengthen and promote unions and their power.  These efforts are reflected in the sharp increase in orders by the NLRB with new Obama appointees that employers recognize unions without balloting,  the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are pushing to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make union recognition mandatory without any balloting when the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, and challenges to state laws that would impede these efforts like that brought against the State of Arizona.  While Congressional Democrats and the Administration have thus far failed to get the legislation passed, they continue to voice their support for and intention to pursue its enactment after the elections in November.

NLRB’s Challenge To Arizona Constitution’s Secret Ballot Provision

In NLRB v. State of Arizona, Judge Frederick J. Martone on September 5, 2012 handed the NLRB a temporary setback in its campaign to prevent states from enacting legislation that would interfere with its efforts to avoid or cut secret ballot protection when it granted the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss the case but left the door open for future action.

As Federal legislation and enforcement actions that would limit workers’ rights to vote in a secret ballot rights have continued, Arizona and various other states have enacted laws to protect secret ballot rights in their states.

In January 2011, the NLRB advised Arizona and three other states that recently adopted “secret-ballot amendments” conflicted with longstanding federal labor law by restricting the methods by which employees can choose a union. When no agreement could be reached, the NLRB filed suit to have the Arizona amendment declared unconstitutional.

The Arizona lawsuit challenged a 2010 constitutional amendment to the Arizona Constitution that states”[t]he right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation.”  Arizona Constitution, Article 2 § 37.  In its lawsuit, the NLRB asked the Federal Court to declare Article 2 § 37 unconstitutional and preempted to the extent that it applies to private employers, private employees, and labor organizations subject to the NLRA on the grounds that the state secret ballot rule “creates a state forum to protect employee representation rights, a task which Congress assigned exclusively to the NLRB.

Among its other efforts to defend the statute, Arizona argued there was no preemption because the state’s “guarantee” of a secret ballot election would only apply if the voluntary recognition option is not selected.

In reaching its ruling, the Federal Court hung its hat on this argument.  “It is possible that state litigation invoking (the amendment) may impermissibly clash with the NLRB’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes over employee recognition, conduct secret ballot elections, and address unfair labor practices,” Judge Martone wrote.  However, because the amendment has not yet been applied, Judge Martone wrote that he could not assume that it would conflict with the NLRA.

Arizona Decision A Temporary Victory In Battle In Labor-Management Relations War

While the court rejected the NLRB challenge of the Arizona secret ballot requirement this week, the NLRB’s announced disagreement with the decision coupled with the limited scope of the ruling makes clear that businesses watch for another NLRB challenge based on the implementation of the law as well as other new regulatory and enforcement traps for employers. 

The court battle over Arizona’s secret ballot amendment is just one of the many areas where the NLRB under the Obama Administration is pursuing a pro-union agenda.  In addition to challenging state laws that might operate to restrict union organizing or other activities, the NLRB also has adopted and is promoting the adoption of other pro-labor rules as well as stepping up enforcement on behalf of labor. See e.g., NLRB Moves To Promote Non-Union Employee Use of Collective Action Rights By Launching Webpage; NLRB Report Shows Rise In Unfair Labor Practice Complaints  Formal Proceedings Comments Feed; NLRB Settlement Shows Care Necessary When Using Social Networking & Other Policies Restricting Employee Communications.  As part of these efforts, for instance, the NLRB increasingly is challenging the authority of employers to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions in employee handbooks or employment agreements, to regulate social media, and to engage in a broad range of other common employer practices while at the same time, it is using its regulatory powers to promote employer posting and other requirements designed to educate workers about their organizational rights.  As many of these new rules apply both to unionized workplaces and ununionized workplace, these and other evolving rules often leave all employers to significant and often underappreciated labor law risks in a broad range of circumstances.  This risk tends to take on particular significance for unorganized workforces  due to a low awareness or appreciation of these changes or their implications on unorganized workforces by their management team.  Mistakes are increasingly costly in the current enforcement environment.

Costly Consequences For Employers

The statistics show the cost of management mishandling of labor relations in today’s environment is expensive and growing.  This pro-labor regulatory and enforcement agenda as resulted in a significant rise in NLRB unfair labor practice charges in recent years.  According to NLRB statistics, the number of unfair labor practice charges brought by the NLRB steadily rose from 2009 to 2011.  The number of charges filed by was 1,342 in 2011, 1,242 in 2010, 1,166 in 2009 and 1,108 in 2008.  Moreover, NLRB statistics also document that backpay and other remedies also have risen sharply during this period.  For instance, in 2008, the NLRB ordered a total of $68,800,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines in 9,400 cases.  In contrast, in 2009, the NLRB ordered $77,700,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines against employers even though the number of cases dropped to 8,700,000 cases.  This trend continued in 2010, where out of 8,300 cases, the NLRB ordered employers to pay $86,100,000 in backpay, fees, dues and fines.  See NLRB Statistics. See also NLRB Case Decisions.

In light of this increased activism, employers should exercise care when using mandatory arbitration, compensation gag rule, or other similar provisions; dealing with requests for employee representation by union and non-union employees in organizing, contracting and even disciplinary actions; establishing and administering social networking, communication and other policies; and a wide range of other situations. In addition, employers concerned about these or other labor activities should consult competent counsel for advice about appropriate options and risks for dealing with these activities. 

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your organization’s employment and/or employee practices in response to the NLRA or other applicable laws, or if we may be of assistance with regard to any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About The Author

Management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer helps businesses, governments and associations solve problems, develop and implement strategies to manage people, processes, and regulatory exposures to achieve their business and operational objectives and manage legal, operational and other risks.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, with more than 20 years human resource, labor and employment and employee benefits experience, Ms. Stamer helps businesses manage their people-related risks and the performance of their internal and external workforce though appropriate human resources, employee benefit, worker’s compensation, insurance, labor management, outsourcing and risk management strategies domestically and internationally.

Recognized in the International Who’s Who of Professionals and bearing the Martindale Hubble AV-Rating, Ms. Stamer also is a highly regarded author and speaker, who regularly conducts management and other training on a wide range of labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources, internal controls and other related risk management matters.  Her writings frequently are published by the American Bar Association (ABA), Aspen Publishers, Bureau of National Affairs, the American Health Lawyers Association, SHRM, World At Work, Government Institutes, Inc., Atlantic Information Services, Employee Benefit News, and many others. For a listing of some of these publications and programs, see here. Her insights on human resources risk management matters also have been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, various publications of The Bureau of National Affairs and Aspen Publishing, the Dallas Morning News, Spencer Publications, Health Leaders, Business Insurance, the Dallas and Houston Business Journals and a host of other publications. Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefit and Other Compensation Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and the Legislative Chair of the Dallas Human Resources Management Association Government Affairs Committee, she also serves in leadership positions in many human resources, corporate compliance, and other professional and civic organizations. For more details about Ms. Stamer’s experience and other credentials, contact Ms. Stamer, information about workshops and other training, selected publications and other human resources related information, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at 469.767.8872 or via e-mail to  cstamer@solutionslawyer.net

If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of Ms. Stamer’s other recent updates, including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2012 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Employers Face New Labor-Management Exposures Under Activist National Labor Relations Board

November 8, 2011

The just-released National Labor Relations Board (Board) 2011 Fiscal Year-end report highlights the advisability for employers to tighten their labor-management relations compliance and defenses in response to the growing regulatory and enforcement activism of the Board on behalf of labor under the Obama Administration.  

President Obama made no secret of his strong support and intention to pursue an aggressive pro-union legislative and enforcement agenda and to take other actions to support unions.  While Administration efforts to enact the Employee Free Choice Act or other pro-union legislation have met with limited success in Congress, federal enforcement law data shows the Obama Administration is achieving significant success in promoting its pro-union agenda through regulation and enforcement.

The 2011 Fiscal Year-end numbers show the number of cases handled by the Board rose 17% in 2011.  During the 2011 Fiscal Year that began October 1, 2010, the Board:

  • Handled 272 unfair labor practice cases and 96 representation cases;
  • Issued 368 decisions in contested cases; and
  • Pursued two pro-labor rule making initiatives.

In cases like its highly publicized challenge to the planned move by Boeing of jobs to another state, the Board regularly has lent its support to labor efforts to oppose or challenge management authority.  In the course of handling these cases, the Board also reached out to strengthen the power and protections of labor by addressing issues such as the access rights of pro-union employees to employer property, the rights of undocumented immigrant workers to back pay remedies, the protection of new collective bargaining relationships from challenge and other issues favorable to union organization and rights.

Along side its high disposition of cases, the Board also has released and sought public comment on two new rules favorable to labor:

  • A new final rule that will require that employers post a notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“Posting Rule”) scheduled to take effect on January 31, 2012; and
  • Proposed rules that would change pre- and post-election representation case procedures, which the Board has not finalized at this time.

The progress of the Board in using its regulatory and enforcement powers to promote a pro-labor agenda is helping union organizing and bargaining efforts.  In light of this new activism, employers should review their existing policies to ensure that they comply with evolving federal rules regarding the rights of labor and to otherwise act to defend against potential labor related risks keeping in mind emerging decisions that extend certain historical labor rights to unionized employees, employees engaged in protected organizing activities and, under recent decisions, in some instances even employees in non-union environments requesting representation in disciplinary or other circumstances not historically understood by employers to fall within the provision of the National Labor Relations Act.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing, updating, administering or defending your labor and employment, fringe benefit or other employee benefit, compensation or other workforce and human resources practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on labor and employment, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters. 

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements impacting workforce, benefit and compensation matters.  She regularly advises employers and others about union-management organizing, collective bargaining, discipline, and other related issues, as well as a broad range of other human resources concerns.

Recently selected for induction as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council and for extensive work and accomplishments in the employee benefits and human resources area, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, she also helps employers and others negotiate employee benefit and other compensation related commitments with unions and others.   She also helps these and other clients to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals.  A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns. 

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the  Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations.   She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications.   You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at www.solutionslawpress.com. 

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS.  ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C.  Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

 

Comments Off on Employers Face New Labor-Management Exposures Under Activist National Labor Relations Board | Employers, Labor Management Relations | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

NLRB To Review, Invites Briefs In Cases Involving Voluntary Recognition Agreements & Successor Employers

August 31, 2010

A newly constituted National Labor Relations Board in a narrow 3-to-2 vote has granted review and is inviting interested parties to file briefs in two sets of cases that question when a labor union’s support among employees can be challenged.

In one set of cases, the newly-constituted Board will reconsider the Board’s 2007 ruling that an employer that agrees to voluntarily recognize a union based on signed authorization cards must post a notice advising the employees that they have a right within 45 days of the notice to file a petition for an election to decertify the union or in support of a rival union, if they so desire.

In the second set of cases, Board is set to reconsider the Board’s rulings that a successor employer duty to recognize and bargain with a union recognized by its predecessor can be challenged by the employer, employees, or a rival union.

Get more details here.

The decisions made by the Board could have significant impacts on the responsibilities of employers to recognize and deal with unions.  Employers and others concerned with labor-management relations should monitor, and if appropriate, consider sharing their perspective through a timely submitted brief in these matters.

For Assistance or More Information

If your organization needs assistance reviewing or responding to the request for comments or otherwise dealing with labor or other human resources compliance concerns, please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor & Employment attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer has more than 23 years experience advising employers and others about union organizing and certification, collective bargaining and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation and other workforce compliance, risk management and defense matters.  She continuously advises employers about these and other related regulatory compliance, workforce management, operational, public policy, enforcement, litigation and risk management and other concerns. Ms. Stamer also publishes, conducts client and other training, speaks and consults extensively on these and other concerns and practices. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, American Health Lawyers Association, Institute of Internal Auditors, and many other organizations.  Her insights on these and related topics have appeared in Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, various ABA publications and a many other national and local publications.  To contact Ms. Stamer or for additional information about Ms. Stamer, her experience, involvements, programs or Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on labor, human resources and other workforce management matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others.  You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. 

Other Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other recent Solutions Law Press updates including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available for review here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates and notices about other upcoming Solutions Law Press events, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail- by creating or updating your profile at here. For important information concerning this communication click here.

©2010 Solutions Law Press. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on NLRB To Review, Invites Briefs In Cases Involving Voluntary Recognition Agreements & Successor Employers | Employers, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer