The Employer Handbook Blog

In a 2-1 decision issued today (copy here), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Labor Relations Board lacked the authority to act as early as March 2010, when President Obama appointed Craig Becker to the Board. The Third Circuit held that Member Becker's appointment to the Board while the Senate was on an intrasession recess (a break within a session of the Senate) was unconstitutional. Implicit in the court's decision is that the appointments of Members Block, Griffin, Flynn in 2013, while the Senate held pro-forma sessions, were also invalid.

The Third Circuit ruled that recess appointments are only valid if made during intersession breaks (i.e., between sessions of the Senate).

This decision is crazy-long (102 pages plus a 55 page dissent). Thankfully, my Dilworth Paxson colleagues, Erin Galbally and Marjorie Obod prepared an e-alert summarizing the decision.

If you do business in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, or the US Virgin Islands, the net effect of this decision may be that, until the Supreme Court rules in this pending case, you can basically ignore just about anything* that the Board has done this decade (well, since March 2010). 

* From June 22, 2010 through August 27, 2011, the Senate had confirmed enough Board members for quorum. So don't ignore that stuff.

(h/t The Volokh Conspiracy)

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled here that the National Labor Relations Board cannot require private employers -- union and non-union -- to hang this poster in a conspicuous location in the workplace. Billed by the Board as a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, many employer groups viewed the "mandatory" poster as more of an encouragement to unionize than as a neutral informational poster.

Previously, the lower court in DC had upheld the poster rule. Meanwhile, a South Carolina federal court had shot it down.

The appellate court determined that the poster rule would violate employers' free speech under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. The appellate court also ruled that the poster rule unlawfully expanded the Board's enforcement powers.

Although this is the first appellate court to rule on this issue, another appellate court (the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) is poised to address this issue shortly. For now, however, even the Board has indicated that you may put the posters away.

That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post."

I'll set it up for you:

You run a non-union company called RH Chili Peppers. However, one of your employees, Disgruntled Donny, has been trying to get his co-workers to help unionize the workplace. Thus far, he has been unsuccessful. So, DD takes to Facebook and posts a message bashing the wages and benefits at RH Chili Peppers on a Facebook page called, "Peter Picked a Peck," a Facebook page that DD "likes." PPaP is frequented by employees, like DD, who work in the chili pepper industry, albeit at other chili pepper companies in the city.

One of your employees shows you printouts of DD's inflammatory comments about RH Chili Peppers. Can you discipline DD?

According to this decision last week from the National Labor Relations Board, the answer is no. The reason is that the National Labor Relations Act protects employees who opt to engage in union-related activities. This speech, even if directed at third parties, is protected if it flows from prior organizational activity, which was known to the employer, and is not libelous. It does not matter whether DD uses a actual bull-horn or a virtual bull-horn. Either way, that speech is protected and discipline may not ensue based on the substance of DD's pro-union speech.

So the answer to today's QATQQ is FICTION.

While some people; namely, hockey players with local ties, use Twitter to congratulate an ex-wife on end of divorce payments, others spew venom about their bosses.

I know. I should have warned you to sit down first. Let me know when the shock subsides.

K-thx.

And the latest 15-minutes-of-fame, there's-an-app-for-that, spotlight shines on FireMe!, which uses keywords and such to show Twitter users who tweet vitriol about their employers. The site, which is chock full of expletives -- you've been warned -- contains four categories: (1) Haters; (2) Horrible Bosses; (3) Sexual Intercourse; and (4) Potential killers. FireMe! also has a "leaderboard," and can, if you are a Twitter user, can "calculate" the chances that you will be fired if your boss learns about your Twitter account. My chances are five percent.

The creators of FireMe! claim it was designed "to raise awareness about the danger of public online data." Indeed, the app will send out tweets to offenders to warn them to delete offensive content. According to one report, FireMe! sent out more than 4300 tweets to offenders in a three-week period, prompting users to delete 249 of those tweets within two hours.

How does this really impact the workplace? 

Well, I can't imagine that any employer out there has the time to monitor this site on the off-chance of finding an employee who bad mouths the company. But even if you did, taking action based on a tweet could burn you. Remember that the National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employees to discuss with one another -- even critically -- terms and conditions of employment. So, while firing a single griper may be ok, terminating an employee who engages in "protected concerted activity" is not.

Plus, when you have a number of employees who use social media to vent about work, rather than blame them, maybe it's time to take a critical look in the mirror to see what you can do to improve the workplace.

Back in late January, a federal appellate court ruled that President Obama lacked the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board. More on that here.

In this press release issued yesterday, the NLRB announced that would seek Supreme Court review. Quoted below is the press release:

The National Labor Relations Board has determined not to seek en banc rehearing in Noel Canning v. NLRB, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the January 4, 2012 recess appointments of three members to the Board were invalid. The Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court for review of that decision. The petition for certiorari is due on April 25, 2013.

So, yeah, um, that's it for today. Unless Lady Gaga's new gold-plated wheelchair interests you. Or maybe this nutty shootout attempt by Ottawa's Kaspars Dugavins?

Are you still here?

In just over half the States in America, if a majority of your co-workers elect to have a union represent them at work, then you must become a member of the union too -- whether you like it or not. Nonmembers who object to that requirement must still may union dues. However, in nearly half of the USA (24 states, to be precise) employees in a unionized workplace may decide for themselves whether to join the union. This is known as "right-to-work." Employees who exercise this right are not required to pay union dues.

Late last year, Michigan became the newest Right-to-Work State. And, last week, Senator Rand Paul (KY-R) reintroduced the "National Right-to-Work Act," described as a bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. This bill would amend both the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to make "right-to-work" the law in all 50 states.

You can view a copy of the bill here.

Meanwhile, word hit yesterday that the Supreme Court has already been asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Last month, a federal appellate court ruled that the appointments were unconstitutional. Lauren Smith at Roll Call has more on this developing story here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today that President Obama lacked the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

You can read a copy of the opinion here.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a two-member Board is powerless to exercise any authority. At the time of the three recess appointments, the Board only had two members.Therefore, by ruling that Obama's three recess appointments are unconstitutional, today's appellate-court ruling effectively moots every decision from the Board subsequent to the recess appointments, most of which went against employers.

Expect this to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has much more on today's ruling here.

2ND UPDATE: Here is a statement from NLRB Chairman Pearce on today's ruling.

Whatcha get the blog for its birthday? Was it an iTunes subscription to Season One of Amish Mafia?

Don't judge the blog. The blog doesn't like to be judged.

After the jump, the selfless blog got you a recap of seven recent National Labor Relations Board decisions affecting your workplace...

Continue reading "The Employer Handbook turns 2; and the NLRB keeps hatin' on employers" »

Welcome everyone to the Employment Law Blog Carnival: Hollywood Casting Call Edition.

[Editor's Note: The original theme for this post was the "Employment Law Blog Carnival: Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Edition." I had this bright idea to begin by cutting and pasting the lyrics to Guns N' Roses' "My Michelle," and, let's just say I bailed after the first line.]

So that leaves us with Plan B, where, after the jump, I have aggregated some of the best, recent posts from around the employment-law blogosphere and fit them together into a single theme: an open casting call.

Because just the other day, this theme came to me after waking from a Codeine/Claritin-D/Mucinex DM-induced slumber, in which I dreamt about casting a recent post of mine -- the one where an employee lost out on an FMLA retaliation claim when her employer fired her after finding Facebook photos of her drinking at a local festival -- while on FMLA. My movie will star Kim Kardashian, in her silver screen debut, as the employee. And Alan Thicke, who played Dr. Jason Seaver on "Growing Pains," could play the company decision-maker. We'll call it "FML Aye Yai Yai!"

[Editor's Note: I'm throwing Thicke a bone here. Don't you think? According to IMDB.com, he just finished production on "Fugget About It", in which ex New York mobster Jimmy Falcone joins the Witness Protection Program and is relocated, with his family, to Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Fugget about it, indeed.]

So that's the idea. More great posts and imaginative casting decisions, after the jump...

* * *

Continue reading "Employment Law Blog Carnival: Hollywood Casting Call Edition" »

Notwithstanding three social media advice memoranda, and another ruling from the National Labor Relations Board slamming Costco's social media policy, you'd think employers would have a better idea how to revise their social media policies so as not to risk violating the National Labor Relations Act.

Well, not so much.

Except, the Board has recently issued guidance which attempts to clarify certain policy issues for employers. Does it? Well, sort of. It's worth a read. Click through...

* * *

Continue reading "2 tips to help your social media policy withstand NLRB scrutiny" »

Just Google it.

The National Labor Relations Board has been drawing a lot of attention for its heightened scrutiny of at-will employment disclaimers. For example, in a case involving the American Red Cross, a Board ALJ found that the American Red Cross broke the law by having an employee handbook policy that stated, in part, "I further agree that the at-will employment relationship cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way."

But new guidance from the NLRB's Acting General Counsel confirms what I've been saying: Don't even think about scrapping those employee handbook at-will employment disclaimers. (Maybe a small tweak may do the trick).

More after the jump...

Continue reading "NLRB breathes new life into your "at-will" employment disclaimers" »

Look out for that flying pig!!!

No, it's true. I've got proof after the jump...

Continue reading "In its first Facebook-firing decison, the NLRB backs an employer" »

We're just a few months away from the Presidential election. That means that the debates are right around the corner.

Monday, started a week-long series of hypothetical debate question for the 2012 candidates for President and Vice President. Here are the questions I asked President Obama, Mitt Romney, and Vice President Biden.

And here's my question for Rep. Paul Ryan:

Your campaign website claims (here) that "unions drive up costs and introduce rigidities that harm competitiveness and frustrate innovation." Both you and Mitt Romney have been critical of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would have made it easier for employees to unionize. Indeed, you once received a 7% approval rating with the AFL-CIO. 

Do you feel that unions today provide any benefit in America's workplace? 

And, if given the opportunity, would you repeal the National Labor Relations Act altogether?

To see what my fellow bloggers would ask Mr. Ryan, check out:

• Donna Ballman - Screw You Guys I'm Going Home
• Jon Hyman - Ohio Employer's Law Blog
• Daniel Schwartz - Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Robin Shea - Employment and Labor Insider

What would you ask Mr. Ryan at the '12 debates? Let me know in the comments below.

It's been a while since I've addressed social media policies and the National Labor Relations Act on this blog. Longer than Kim K's marriage to what's his name? Indeed. Methinks things at the National Labor Relations Board have been quiet lately. Maybe a little too quiet.

And then...

Click..click...BOOM! [Cue music]

Earlier this month, for the first...time...evah, the NLRB weighed in on the validity of an employer's social media policy.

I know. I know. Sit down, catch your breath. This is big stuff! Big stuff!!! Mmmm...double stuf. And speaking of Oreos, have you seen these bad-boys? Who wants to send me a package for Halloween?

Wait! What were we talking about again? Was it fantasy football? Should I start Martellus Bennett tonight? 

No, it was NLRB. Dang! What did the NLRB decide about social media policies? WHAT OF SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES!?!? I won't keep you in suspense any longer. Hit the jump and find out!

Continue reading "NLRB's 1st social media ruling: Slams Costco policy; greenlights defamation" »

Courts analyzing anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act mandate that employers educate employees about discrimination in the workplace and provide a way for them to complain. Then, once made aware of discrimination in the workplace, the employer must take steps that are reasonably designed to end the discrimination. That could mean anything from a verbal warning up to termination of employment. That decision is up to the employer.

In Phila. Housing Authority v. AFSCME, after investigating a complaint of sexual harassment, a unionized employer with a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment fired the alleged harasser. The union subsequently filed a grievance that eventually led to arbitration, at which time the arbitrator deemed the alleged harasser's behavior to be "lewd, lascivious and extraordinarily perverse." Notwithstanding, the arbitrator concluded that a verbal warning would have sufficed, rather than termination, and ordered the alleged harasser reinstated and made whole.

On appeal, the PA Supreme Court blasted the arbitrator's decision, while emphasizing the public policy against unlawful harassment in the workplace.

The issue before the arbitrator was whether there was just cause for this termination, and if not, what would be the appropriate remedy short of termination. The absurd award here makes a mockery of the dominant public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace, by rendering public employers powerless to take appropriate actions to vindicate a strong public policy. Such an irrational award undermines clear and dominant public policy.

The high court then emphasized that employers should have the discretion to determine what step(s) are most reasonably designed to discrimination in the workplace:

A public employer cannot be denied the power to impose consequences for this sort of inappropriate, and facially criminal, conduct. Indeed, with the general notion in mind that recognized rights must generally have some form of remedy, it is clear that there must be a power in public employers to take meaningful steps to vindicate dominant public policy. To allow an arbitration award which finds that an employee engaged in "extraordinarily perverse" physical sexual harassment of a co-worker, yet then simply dismisses the conduct as unworthy of an employer response beyond initial "counseling," and reinstatement with back pay, would eviscerate the ability of employers to enforce dominant public policy.

Learn from this decision. Employers should make sure that their anti-harassment policies emphasize zero tolerance. Then, err on the side of harsher discipline. There is no place in the workplace for unlawful discrimination.