Source: https://wyattemployment.com/tag/pearce/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:43:00+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a split decison in D.H. Horton v. NLRB, No. 12-60031, decided December 3, 2013, rejected the NLRB’s ruling that an agreement between employees and Horton requiring arbitration and prohibiting class or collective actions in arbitration was a violation of the National labor Relations Act. That agreement also required that all employment related disputes be resolved individually through arbitration. The Board panel of Pearce and Becker (Hayes had recused himself) had concluded that prohibiting employees from pursuing class or collective action claims in arbitration infringed on substantive rights under Section 7 of the Act. It also held that the agreement discouraged employees from filing charges with the Board.
The court in rejecting the Board’s position on class or collective actions focused on the Federal Arbitration Act which favors arbitration. After a detailed analysis of the NLRB’s arguments as to why the NLRA should govern, rather than the FAA, the court concluded that the Board’s arguments lacked merit. However, the court did enforce the Board’s order pertaining to discouragement of employees from filing charges with the Board.
The court also rejected challenges to the underlying Board decision based on the invalidity of Member Becker’s recess appointment and the timing of the expiration of his recess appointment.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: 5th Circuit, arbitration agreements, class or collective, Craig Becker, D.H. Horton, Hayes, Labor Law, National Labor Relations Board, NLRA, Pearce, recess appointments | Permalink.
Recently, the President re-nominated Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, both Democrats, to be Members of the National Labor Relations Board. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Noel Canning v. NLRB that their recess appointments to the NLRB made in early January 2012, were not valid. The five-member board is chaired by Mark Pearce, whose term will expire August 27, 2013. The two Republican seats are currently vacant. A number of Republican Senators have called upon Block and Griffin to resign in light of the D.C. Circuit decision.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, Noel Canning v. NLRB, Nominations, Obama, Pearce, Recess appointment, Richard Griffin, Sharon Block | Permalink.
In the past year the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, has attracted a lot of attention in the legal and business community by issuing three memoranda describing how his office has alleged that employers have violated the rights of non-union employees by enforcing social networking policies. Taking a page from Mr. Solomon’s book, the NLRB itself has now gotten into the act. On June 19th the Board announced that it has launched a website intended to describe the rights of employees to act together for mutual aid and protection, “even if they are not in a union.” The website address is http://www.nlrb.gov/concerted-activity.
The website consists of a graphic map of the United States showing thirteen locations around the country in which it was alleged or eventually found that employers at a variety of types of non-union workplaces had violated the rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). All but one of the cases involved employees being fired for engaging in activity protected by the Act, such as complaining about supervisors, working conditions, or compensation or, in one case, simply discussing wages with a co-worker in violation of an unlawful workplace policy prohibiting such discussions. In each case, the employers either settled early in the process or lost at trial. The outcome in each case was back pay for discharged employees, offers of reinstatement, and rescission of unlawful workplace policies.
This website could well spark an increase in the number of unfair labor practice charges filed against non-union employers, particularly if the Board does not also feature cases which were found to have no merit, which it does not appear they intend to do. So it would be wise for all non-union employers to be aware that they are not beyond the reach of the Act simply because they are non-union. In particular, any workplace situation involving the possible discipline or discharge of employees should be analyzed in light of the protections afforded by the Act in order to avoid violating employees’ rights and being ordered to pay back pay and offer reinstatement to discharged employees. At the same time, employers should be aware of the kind of activity that is not protected by the Act. Unfortunately, the dividing line between the two is often not clearly marked, and a very careful judgment must be made.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: Labor Law, Lafe Solomon, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, non-union employees, Pearce, protected activity, website | Permalink.
The two Republican members of the Board, Members Hayes and Flynn, objected to the issuance of this request, pointing out that the case has been pending before the Board in its current posture for almost five years, and various organizations representing “virtually all institutions of higher education” in the country have already filed amicus briefs in the case. They also pointed out that during the long pendency of this case, no other organizations have asked to participate in the case, and there is no legitimate reason to further delay the case.
Although the factors relevant to the managerial authority of university faculty were first enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court over 30 years ago in a 1980 case involving Yeshiva University, and the Board has since been ordered by the courts to determine in each case “which factors were significant and which less so, and why” the Board has yet to make that determination in this case. This is astonishing considering that the case was first filed in 2003.
This request for briefs at this time appears to be for the purpose of soliciting more input from organized labor on this issue and to engage in a sort of back door rulemaking on the issue of faculty organizing. Although the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the Yeshiva University case that each university is different, and the Board must make a decision in each and every case based upon the facts of that case, it appears that the Board intends to use its current three Democrat majority to create a precedent about which managerial factors are more important, and which are less important, in all cases. It will be no surprise if the Board ultimately narrows the managerial exception and makes it easier for faculty to organize in future cases.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: additional briefing, Block, Flynn, Griffin, Hayes, Labor Law, NLRA, NLRB, Park Point University, Pearce, U.S. Supreme Court, union representation, unions, university faculty, Yeshiva University | Permalink.
1. §102.64 is amended to expressly construe Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act to state that the statutory purpose of a pre-election hearing is to determine if a “question concerning representation” exists.
3. §102.66(d) is amended to afford the hearing officer presiding over a pre-election hearing the discretion as to whether or not the filing of post-hearing briefs will be allowed, and, if so, what issues are to be addressed, and the time for filing, all subject to the ultimate authority of the regional director.
4. §§102.67 and 102.69 are amended to defer most requests for Board review—with the exception of special permission to appeal—until after the election is conducted; any such post-election request can also be consolidated with a request for review of any post-election rulings.
5. §101.21(d) is amended to eliminate the recommendation (along with all of Part 101, Subpart C) that the regional director should ordinarily not schedule an election sooner than 25 days after the decision and direction of election in order to give the Board an opportunity to rule on a pre-election request for review, since such requests can now only be made after the election is conducted.
6. §102.65 is amended to clarify and narrow the circumstances under which a request for special permission to appeal to the Board will be granted.
7. §§102.62(b) and 102.69 are amended to create a uniform procedure for resolving election objections and potentially outcome-determinative challenges in stipulated and directed election cases and to provide that Board review of a regional director’s resolution of such disputes is discretionary.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: Hayes, Labor Law, Lafe Solomon, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, Pearce, Rule speeding up representation election process | Permalink.
On February 16, 2012, the U.S. House Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN), joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN), introduced H.J. Resolution 103 under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. §§801-808) that would block the National Labor Relations Board’s December 21, 2011, new representation election rules intended to speed up and streamline the Board’s union representation election process, to be effective April 30, 2012. Sixty-five House members as of now support the resolution.
A companion resolution (S. J. Res. 63) was also introduced in the U. S. Senate by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). S. J. Res. 63 has the support so far from 44 Senators.
The December 2011 rules were only a portion of proposed changes announced in June, 2011. Since December, NLRB Chairman Pearce has indicated he intended to bring up for consideration later this year the remaining proposals designed to speed up the election process.
The Congressional Review Act was enacted by the Congress as a part of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 and is also known as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The law permits the Congress to review, on an expedited basis, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule the regulations. It would appear that the Republicans in the House may be able to pass the resolution, but it would seem more doubtful in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: Enzi, Gingrey, H.J. Resolution 103, House of Representatives, Isakson, Kline, Labor Law, NLRB, Pearce, Recess appointment, representation elections, Roe, S.J. Resolution 63, Senate, union representation election rules | Permalink.
As we reported in a blog article on December 6, 2011, NLRB Republican Member Brian Hayes was being investigated by the NLRB’s Inspector General over an allegation that he had been enticed to resign his position as a Member of the Board, which at the time would have reduced the number of board members to two, leaving the Board unable to issue decisions. Mr. Hayes had earlier threatened to resign in a letter to the Chairman of the Board over certain proposed regulations being considered by the Board’s other two members. Mr. Hayes decided later and announced that he was not resigning.
In an article by Kevin Bogardus posted on the website of The Hill on January 26, 2012, it was reported that the Inspector General had completed his investigation and concluded that Mr. Hayes had not been enticed to resign his post. “As a result of our investigative efforts, we found no evidence that enticements were made to Member Hayes to resign his position as a Board Member,” Dave Berry, the NLRB’s Inspector General wrote in a January 23 memo to Mr. Hayes and NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce. The Inspector General did note, however, that Mr. Hayes had sought employment with the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Nevertheless, Mr. Berry found no wrongdoing by Member Hayes. Apparently, Mr.Hayes had recused himself from any matters before the Board where the Morgan firm was involved. By December 22, 2011, according to the report, Member Hayes advised the Morgan firm that he was no longer interested in employment with them.
This may not be the end of the matter. The Hill also reported that U.S. Representative George Miller, a Democrat from California and the ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, wrote a letter on January 26, 2012, to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that the Justice Department initiate its own investigate of Mr.Hayes’ resignation threat.
Categories: Labor Law | Tags: Brian Hayes, Dave Berry, Inspector General, Keven Bogardus, Labor Law, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, Pearce, resignation, The Hill | Permalink.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §102
 §102
 §101
 §102