While it may come as a surprise, the NLRB has long held that employees are sometimes entitled to use profane language while engaging in labor activities. In recent years, the Board has found that employee speech was protected where:
The National Labor Relations Board recently invalidated an arbitration agreement that would require employees to arbitrate all “all claims or controversies” with their employer, holding that such a provision would unlawfully restrict employees’ access to the Board to adjudicate labor disputes.
The Board’s decision in Prime Healthcare could reverberate widely because the language it declared
Federal labor law protects neutral (secondary) employers from becoming entangled in labor disputes between another (primary) employer and unions. For most of the past decade, however, the NLRB has allowed unions to set up various displays – including an inflatable rat (otherwise known as “Scabby”) and an inflatable “fat cat” – near neutral employers’ premises
Since the emergence of the “gig economy” in the last decade, courts and government agencies have grappled with the question of whether gig workers should be classified as employees or contractors. The answer to that question has enormous consequences for employee coverage under various federal and state employment laws, ranging from anti-discrimination statutes like Title
On Monday, February 4, Governor Phil Murphy made good on a campaign promise and signed into law a new bill (A-15) that will raise the State’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024. This hike in minimum wage, however, will not happen immediately and increases will be phased in over time.
Currently, the minimum
Employee complaints must be “concerted” to enjoy the protections of federal labor law. This requirement, contained in the language of the NLRA, stems from the collective nature of rights guaranteed by the NLRA, which ensure protection for union activity or activity that is made for “mutual aid or protection.” Despite rather clear statutory language, the
There is another yet another development in saga of the NLRB’s joint employer standard. This issue, which has caused consternation in the business community, concerns the Board’s standards for finding that two entities are jointly responsible under federal labor law as the employers of a certain group of employees. Just before the New Year, the
In Silvan Industries, 367 NLRB No. 28 (2018), the Board decided that an employer, upon being presented with evidence that creates well-founded uncertainty as to a union’s majority support, may file an election petition despite previously agreeing to a collective bargaining agreement with the union that had not yet taken effect. This Board decision
Can employees engage in a concerted stretching exercise during work hours? The NLRB recently said yes.
The NLRA allows employees to engage in demonstrations to support their union, including demonstrations in support of contract proposals. However, the law does not protect employees from engaging in work slowdowns or other refusals to perform work. Strikes
In December 2017, the NLRB issued a decision in Boeing Corp., which altered the Board’s test concerning the validity of workplace rules. To further clarify the decision and current state of the law, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a Memo (GC Memo 18-04) concerning the impact of the decision. GC Memo 18-04