Search
Articles Posted in Unions (labor relations)
He was late for work 111 times because of….BREAKFAST?!?! (And kept his $90,000 job).
Earlier this year, I shared the most unique late-to-work excuses. “I have a bad habit of eating breakfast in the morning, and I lost track of time” did not make the list. However, according to the Associated Press, a New Jersey teacher used that excuse to explain away the 111 times he was late to work.
The latest NLRB decision could provide many fired employees with a huge second bite at the apple.
In a decision issued last week (here), the National Labor Relations Board ruled that “the filing of an employment-related class or collective action by an individual employee is an attempt to initiate, to induce, or to prepare for group action and is therefore conduct protected by Section 7 [of the National Labor Relations Act].” So, for example, if you fire someone for filing a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, then you’ve violated both the FLSA and the NLRA.
Yes, if an employer actually retaliates in that manner, shame on the company. However, two things pique my interest here:
- An administrative law judge concluded that the employee was fired because he filed a FLSA collective action. By this time, in the federal court action, the parties had barely scratched the surface on taking discovery and the federal court had yet to certify a class. (Ultimately, the FLSA action was settled amicably in federal court, without any finding of liability).
Company ordered to re-hire an employee after his “racist, offensive, and reprehensible” speech.
An employee was caught on video saying to black employees, “Hey, did you bring enough KFC for everyone?” and “Hey, anybody smell that? I smell fried chicken and watermelon.” The company had a strict anti-harassment policy. So, after learning about the comments, the company fired the employee.
So, what would compel an Administrative Law Judge to require that the company reinstate him? Continue reading
NLRB ok’s one of the filthiest employee Facebook posts about a manager … evah!
[WARNING: This post has some VERY foul language. Although the National Labor Relations Board may tolerate it, many of you may be offended].
By now, all of us have read the articles, which claim that the law permits your employees to complain about work on social media … and keep their jobs.
Well, that’s not exactly true. The National Labor Relations Act, which applies to most private-sector workplaces — both union and non-union — protects employees who engage in protected concerted activity. Protected concerted activity is where employees discuss working conditions with one another.
But, an employee who gripes alone is not protected. Also, vulgar and obscene comments are not protected.
Until now. Continue reading
English-only rules may be discriminatory….and violate federal labor law too.
A few years ago, I posed the question: Is a workplace “English-only” rule legal?
Yadda, yadda, yadda, sometimes.
That is, in this Compliance Manual, the EEOC confirms that employers may adopt English-only rules under certain circumstances, insofar as it is adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons (e.g., safety, business necessity) and not to discriminate on the basis of national origin. Continue reading
39 reasons why your employee handbook may violate the law
Before I get to a 1752-word blog post about the National Labor Relations Board going wee-wee all over your workplace Cheerios with this March 18 report from General Counsel Griffin, replete with examples of how your employee handbook is overly broad and violates the National Labor Relations Act, let me do two things:
- Shout out to employment lawyer and blogger Robin Shea and her fantastic job with the April Fools Edition of the Employment Law Blog Carnival. Word!
- The follow-up podcast I recorded with Casey Sipe and Jessica Miller-Merrell from Blogging4Jobs.com on the FMLA/ADA/WC questions we couldn’t get to during out hour-long webinar is now available. Email me if you’d like a copy.
So, about that report… Continue reading
#SOTU and the #Workplace: A full debriefing of last night’s Presidential address
I had every intention of watching the President address the Nation last night. I really did.
But, then I got sucked into the Director’s Cut of The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the one where the Washington Generals show up first and replace all the confetti with lice. Then poor Lovie Howell takes some shrapnel and, frankly, I didn’t realize that Thurston could order a hit squad so quickly to a remote Island.
By the time I remembered the SOTU, the Harlem Globetrotters were busting out a ladder — sorry, Krusty — and que sera.
Fortunately for me, and, by extension, you, the White House printed a copy of the SOTU, which I could cut and paste expertly analyze for you after the jump…
* * *
SHRM, US Chamber, NAM, and other business groups sue to block new NLRB election rules
It’s on now!
Late yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a press release in which it announced that it had filed this complaint in federal court against the National Labor Relations Board to strike the Board’s election rules, passed last month, which would create faster union elections.
More on this lawsuit, after the jump…
* * *
Make a New Year’s Resolution to have union-avoidance training
Cue the haters.
Following a decision last Thursday permitting employees to use company email to badmouth you and unionize, the National Labor Relations Board ended last week by passing a new rule, which, in its words, updated “its representation-case procedures to modernize and streamline the process for resolving representation disputes.”
In other words, faster union elections and more of ’em.
Details on this new rule and what employers can do about it, after the jump…
* * *