Source: http://www.laborandemploymentlawcocktail.com/a_mix_of_labor_and_employ/page/2/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 12:19:05
Document Index: 218427365

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

Employer May Be Liable for Coding Applicant "Ineligible" Before Applying FCRA Background Check Protocol by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
A federal court in Virginia last week denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), finding triable issues on whether the coding of applicants as "ineligible" was an adverse action under the statute and whether the inclusion of a release of liability in the authorization form completed by applicants was a willful violation of the Act. The decision in Manuel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia underscored the significant risk that the FCRA imposes on employers that conduct background checks. The plaintiff in the case applied for a loan document specialist position at Wells Fargo and obtained an offer of employment conditioned upon the successful completion of a background check. Pursuant to Wells Fargo's instructions, the plaintiff accessed the website of Wells Fargo's third-party background check vendor and completed a standard application and the "Wells Fargo Standard Consent." The standard consent form contained provisions that advised the plaintiff that a background check may be obtained for employment purposes. It also contained language purporting to release Wells Fargo, its vendor, and third parties from liability arising from retrieving and/or reporting information regarding the applicant and from using the report of employment purposes. These documents initiated the background check process and resulted in the report of two convictions for petit larceny as well as a conviction for aggravated assault with serious bodily injury in the second degree. Upon receiving the report, Wells Fargo coded the plaintiff as "ineligible" in the background check vendor's system, which triggered the vendor's adverse action protocol. Specifically, the plaintiff received a "Pre-Adverse Action Notice," a copy of the report, and a summary of rights under the FCRA. The plaintiff disputed the report and appealed pursuant to Wells Fargo’s appeal process. The vendor then generated a revised report that still contained the disputed convictions, and Wells Fargo sent an adverse action notice to the plaintiff advising him that Wells Fargo would not consider him further for the employment position. The plaintiff claimed that Wells Fargo violated the FCRA requirement of a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document that consists solely of a disclosure that a background check may be obtained. He also claimed that Wells Fargo’s coding of plaintiff as "ineligible" in the vendor's system, which triggered the adverse action protocol, violated the FCRA requirement that the pre-adverse action notice, a copy of the report, and summary of rights be provided to the individual before the adverse action. Wells Fargo argued that the plaintiff had no standing to assert a claim for violation of the FCRA's initial disclosure requirement and that the "ineligible" coding was only a "preliminary" determination.
The court found that the plaintiff had standing to assert a claim based on the provision that the initial disclosure be in a document that consists solely of the disclosure and that a triable issue existed as to whether the "ineligible" coding was an adverse action under the FCRA. The court emphasized that, under Wells Fargo's procedure, its use of the ineligibility code was the only communication that Wells Fargo made to its vendor about the applicant unless the applicant disputed the background check after he received the pre-adverse action notice. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that Wells Fargo’s adverse hiring decision was final when it was first relayed to the vendor because Wells Fargo was comfortable adhering to that decision without reviewing it if the individual did not file a dispute. The court also specifically rejected Wells Fargo’s argument that the FCRA did not apply because the statute excludes background checks in connection with an investigation of compliance with federal banking law restrictions on the type of individuals who may be employed at banking institutions. Employers Should Plan for Compliance with the FCRA
The Wells Fargo case provides another reminder of the importance of compliance with the FCRA's procedural requirements and how easily employers can be tripped up by the technical aspects of the statute. To reduce the risk of claims and to comply with the FCRA, employers should:
Give Proper Notice to the Consumer Reporting Agency. Send a certification notice to the background or credit check agency to document each request for consumer and/or investigative reports in accordance with the FCRA. This communication should be sent for every report requested by the employer. It should certify the employer’s compliance with disclosure requirements and that the employer will not use the information provided by the agency to violate equal employment opportunity requirements.
Get the Individual's Authorization. An employer may not procure a consumer report on an applicant or employee unless the employer has provided clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the applicant or employee that a consumer report may be obtained. The disclosure should be made in a document that is separate from any other documents. In addition, the applicant or employee must give his or her written authorization for obtaining the report. The compliant authorization form may differ from a reporting agency's authorization form, which the agency may require for its own purposes. The employer's form may provide for the applicant or employee to authorize the employer to obtain a consumer report or investigative consumer report at any time during the application process or during the employment if the applicant is hired. The employer may also include with the authorization form a copy of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Summary of Rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Use Pre-Adverse Action Notices. Before any adverse action is taken against an applicant or employee because of information in a report, the employer is required send to the employee or applicant a pre-adverse action notification, a copy of the consumer report and a copy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s "A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act." The notice is designed to provide to the individual an opportunity to explain or correct the information in the report. In order to provide for an individualized assessment with respect to an employee or applicant and thereby address disparate impact issues under Title VII, the pre-adverse action notice should solicit information from the individual on which the individual may base any belief that he or she should not be screened out from employment.
Use Written Notices of Adverse Action. The FCRA requires the disclosure of the name and contact information of the reporting agency as well as other disclosures, and employers should satisfy these requirements by providing written notice to applicants and employees subjected to an adverse action based on information in a consumer report. The FCRA requires that specific information be included in the various notices required under the statute, and employers should carefully ensure that their documents comply with the FCRA's specific notice requirements.
This article summarizes only some of the FCRA's requirements and does not address any state or local legal requirements relating to background checks. Some states may have additional or different requirements. Employers should consult an attorney prior to obtaining background checks on applicants and employees.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 08/25/2015 at 12:59 PM in employment law, FCRA, Legal, litigation | Permalink
OFCCP Posts New Section 503 Checklist Tool for Federal Contractors by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") has posted a new interactive tool that federal contractors may find useful. The DOL has indicated that the Checklist for Compliance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was developed by the DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy, in coordination with OFCCP. The Checklist is designed to help federal contractors assess their compliance with the affirmative action program (AAP) requirements of Section 503 by considering a series of “yes/no” questions about their company’s practices and policies. Contractors are not required to use the Checklist, and using the Checklist does not ensure compliance with the Section 503 regulations. However, using the Checklist may help a contractor enhance its awareness of its AAP obligations and alert it to potential compliance problems that may need correction.
The Checklist for Compliance with Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 can be found at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/ChecklistforCompliancewithSection503_JRF_QA_508c.pdf on OFCCP’s Contractor Assessment Tools and Trackers Web page.
Federal contractors interested in using the Checklist should understand that audit tools like the Checklist may be discoverable in litigation and agency investigations, and they should consider consulting an attorney regarding privacy protections that may be applied to facilitate and protect appropriate self-audits.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 08/12/2015 at 03:45 PM in ADA, affirmative action, discrimination, EEO, employment law, government contracting, Legal, OFCCP | Permalink
| | 07/01/2015
DOL Proposes Massive Expansion in Overtime Pay by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
The Department of Labor announced yesterday a proposed rule that would impose new overtime pay requirements on employers and affect 5 million white collar workers within the first year of the rule's implementation. The proposal would guarantee overtime pay to most salaried workers earning less than an estimated $50,440 next year.
The Department is proposing to update the regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees (white collar workers) are entitled to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime pay protections. The DOL proposal focuses primarily on updating the salary and compensation levels needed for white collar workers to be exempt. Specifically, the Department proposes to set the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers ($921 per week, or $47,892 annually). As proposed, this would raise the salary threshold from $455 a week ($23,660 a year) to a projected level of $970 a week ($50,440 a year) in 2016. The DOL's proposal would also increase the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt highly compensated employees to the annualized value of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers ($122,148 annually).
Another significant change proposed by the DOL is the establishment of a mechanism for automatically updating the salary and compensation levels going forward. The Department is considering two alternative methodologies for annually updating the salary and compensation thresholds. One method would update the thresholds based on a fixed percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers. The other method would update the thresholds based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. Both methods are described in detail in the DOL's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and the Department is asking for comments on which methodology would be the most appropriate basis for annual updates to the salary and compensation thresholds.
While some anticipated that the Department's proposal would also propose changes to the current duties tests for the white collar exemptions, the DOL proposal did not include any revisions to the duties tests in its proposal. Rather, the NPRM is soliciting comment on the current requirements. The DOL also has asked for comment on whether the Department should look to the State of California’s law (requiring that 50 percent of an employee’s time be spent exclusively on work that is the employee’s primary duty) as a model. Similarly, the Department is seeking comment on the possibility of including nondiscretionary bonuses to satisfy a portion of the standard salary requirement. The Department has not proposed specific regulatory changes on either the duties tests or the inclusion of bonuses.
Although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed and approved the NPRM, the document has not yet been published in the Federal Register. The NPRM that appears in the Federal Register will specify the dates of the public comment period and may contain minor formatting differences in accordance with Office of the Federal Register publication requirements. The DOL announced the OMB-approved version as a convenience to the public and the DOL has indicated that its website will be updated with the Federal Register’s published version when it becomes available. The full text of the NPRM, as well as information on the deadline for submitting comments and the procedures for submitting comments, can be found at the DOL's Proposed Rule website.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 07/01/2015 at 09:10 AM in employment law, FLSA, overtime, wage-hour | Permalink
| | 06/24/2015
Ambush at the NLRB: Region 28's Average Election Time Now 18 Days by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
It's still too early to say which National Labor Relations Board regional office ultimately will lead the regions in the average shortest time between the filing of a certification petition and the conduct of an election under the National Labor Relations Board’s ambush election rule, but an early analysis of NLRB case data shows Region 28 in Phoenix, Arizona, with an average election period of only 18 days, significantly ahead of the other regional offices. (See the Chart below.) The sample size for the elections conducted by Region 28 was 8 elections, and it included election periods of 13 days, 14 days, 16 days, and two at 17 days. Region 22, in Newark, New Jersey, conducted one election in 9 days, the shortest time between petition and election. Region 4 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which conducted an election in 10 days, had the second shortest election period. Eight regional offices conducted elections in 14 days or less, and Region 5, in Baltimore, Maryland, conducted two elections in 14 days.
As reported in a previous post, an analysis of petition filings and other NLRB docket activity in 222 representation cases filed at the NLRB during the period beginning April 14, 2015, the effective date of the new NLRB rules, and ending June 5, 2015 (the "Relevant Period"), showed that the average number of days between petition and scheduled election in representation cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 in which an election at a polling place was scheduled as of June 5, 2015, was 24.8 days. The results stated above are based on NLRB reports and docket activity as of June 5, 2015, in the cases identified in Table 1 in the previous post. The NLRB reports and dockets are available at www.nlrb.gov. Dates of election and mail-ballot vote counting for cases filed during the period April 5, 2015, through June 5, 2015, were obtained primarily by examining Notices of Election and other docketed documents. Many of the cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 were still in progress as of June 5, 2015, the latest date on which documents in the cases were examined. With more cases over time and more complete docket information, the data will enable more confidence in analytical conclusions regarding the performance of the various NLRB regions under the new election rules.
Timothy M. McConville leads the labor and employment law group at Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. in Reston, Virginia. Mr. McConville may be reached at 703-218-2119 or timothy.mcconville@ofplaw.com. Follow him at laborandemploymentlawcocktail.com and on Twitter @worklawguy.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 06/24/2015 at 10:04 AM in collective bargaining, employment law, labor relations, Legal, NLRA, organized labor, Right to Work, unfair labor practice, union | Permalink
Ambush at the NLRB: Unions Winning Over 60% of Elections Under New Rules by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
Implementation of the National Labor Relations Board’s ambush election rule is in full swing, and, after seven weeks of experience under the new rule, NLRB case data reveal that unions are winning well over 60 percent of representation elections conducted by the NLRB. During the period beginning April 14, 2015, the effective date of the NLRB rule, and ending June 5, 2015, the rate at which unions won representation elections in 71 elections as reported as of June 5, 2015, was 62.0 percent. During the NLRB’s fiscal years 2004 through 2013, unions’ average win rate in representation elections was 63.3 percent, with the highest percentage of 68.5 percent occurring in 2009 and the lowest percentage of 57.2 percent occurring in 2004. Unions' win rate during the April 14-June 5 period (the "Relevant Period") in 2014 was 66.3 percent.
The early election-results data are incomplete. Based on NLRB docket information, during the Relevant Period in 2014, the Board conducted 240 elections, and during the Relevant Period in 2015, as of June 5, 2015, the Board had conducted 71 elections and had an additional 151 elections scheduled. The results in the 151 remaining elections, as well as the results in other cases filed since the Relevant Period in 2015, will determine whether the new rule will produce a higher win rate for unions. So far, based on NLRB’s reported docket activity as of June 5, 2015, the unions’ win rate of 62 percent in the 71 elections completed as of June 5, 2015, is consistent with unions’ 10-year average win rate. With more cases over time and more complete docket information, the data will enable more confidence in analytical conclusions relating to election results, which will permit more focused employer strategies.
The results stated above are based on NLRB reports and docket activity as of June 5, 2015 in 71 cases filed on or after April 14, 2015, in which an election was conducted as of June 5, 2015. The NLRB reports and dockets are available at www.nlrb.gov. Timothy M. McConville leads the labor and employment law group at Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. in Reston, Virginia. Mr. McConville may be reached at 703-218-2119 or timothy.mcconville@ofplaw.com. Follow him at laborandemploymentlawcocktail.com and on Twitter @worklawguy. Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 06/18/2015 at 12:13 PM in collective bargaining, employment law, labor relations, Legal, NLRA, organized labor, Right to Work, union | Permalink
Charts and Tables for Article: Ambush at the NLRB: Election Rule Slashes Time for Workers to Make Informed Choice by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
The Following are Charts and Tables from the article originally published on June 10, 2015, entitled "Ambush at the NLRB: Election Rule Slashes Time for Workers to Make Informed Choice."
Chart 2 Chart 3 Table 1: RC Petitions Filed at NLRB During Period April 14, 2015 - June 5, 2015 in Which Elections Were Scheduled
Table 2: RC Petitions Filed at NLRB During Period April 14, 2014 - June 5, 2014 in Which Elections Were Conducted
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 06/11/2015 at 01:23 PM | Permalink
Ambush at the NLRB: Election Rule Slashes Time for Workers to Make Informed Choice by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
Implementation of the National Labor Relations Board’s ambush election rule is in full swing, and, after seven weeks of experience under the new rule, NLRB case data reveal a dramatic reduction in the time between the filing of a certification petition and the NLRB’s conduct of an election. Conclusions: Analysis of Representation Cases Shows 35% Reduction in Campaign Time.
An analysis of petition filings and other NLRB docket activity over 2014 and 2015, including in 222 representation cases filed at the NLRB during the period beginning April 14, 2015, the effective date of the new NLRB rules, and ending June 5, 2015, shows a dramatic impact on the time available to employees to become informed about how a union will affect their lives in the work place:
Comparing the period April 14 through June 5 (the “Relevant Period”) in 2014 with the same Relevant Period in 2015, the median number of days from petition to election at a polling place (excluding mail-ballot elections) declined by 35 percent. The median number of days between petition and election for petitions filed in the Relevant Period in 2014 was 38, and the median number of days for petitions filed in the Relevant Period in 2015 was 24. (Chart 1.)
Comparing the Relevant Period in 2014 with the Relevant Period in 2015, the average number of days from petition to either polling-place election or counting of mail-ballots declined by 35 percent. For petitions filed in the Relevant Period in 2014, the average number of days between petition and polling-place election or mail-ballot counting was 41.4, and for petitions filed in the Relevant Period in 2015 in which an election was scheduled as of June 5, 2015, the average number of days was 27.2. (Chart 2.)
The average number of days between petition and scheduled election in representation cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 in which an election at a polling place was scheduled as of June 5, 2015, was 24.8 days. (Chart 3.)
The average number of days between petition and scheduled counting of mail-ballots in representation cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 in which a mail-ballot election was scheduled as of June 5, 2015, was 37.7 days. (Chart 3.)
In representation cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 in which either a polling-place election or counting of ballots in a mail-ballot election was scheduled as of June 5, 2015, the average number of days between petition and scheduled election or ballot counting was 27 days. (Chart 3.)
During the Relevant Period in 2015, the rate at which unions won representation elections in 71 elections as reported as of June 5, 2015, was 62.0 percent, which is within the recent historical range of unions’ win rates. Based on NLRB historical data, in the NLRB’s fiscal years 2004 through 2013, unions’ average win rate in representation elections was 63.3 percent, with the highest percentage of 68.5 percent occurring in 2009 and the lowest percentage of 57.2 percent occurring in 2004.
Analysis: On Average, Workers’ Time for Learning About Unions Will Be Cut by Two Weeks.
The Board’s final rule does not mandate that an election occur within a certain period of time, but the new procedural requirements for the filing and processing of representation petitions has caused a dramatic reduction in the average and median times between the filing of a petition and the conduct of an NLRB secret-ballot election. In the years 2004 through 2013, the median time between petition and election was 37-39 days. From 2010 through 2013, the median time from petition to election was 38 days. Under the new rules, for the Relevant Period, the median time between petition and a polling-place election was 24 days, and the average time between petition and either a polling-place election or mail-ballot election was 27.2 days. The reduction by 35 percent of the average and median times between petition and election is a dramatic change for workers and employers. On average, employers have 14 fewer days to communicate with their employees about how a union can and will affect the working lives of employees. In addition to having far less time during which to communicate with employees, employers have a dramatically increased administrative burden that they must carry at the same time that they are engaging with employees about the election issues. The new rules require, among other things, that the employer file a written position statement within seven days of the filing of the petition in order avoid waiving the employer’s legal arguments. For their part, employees have an average of 14 fewer days to become informed about union rules, union dues, bargaining, how unions really operate, and other issues, before they make their decision. Employees are often unschooled in how unions and collective bargaining actually affect workers, and the reduction in time available for them to learn important details will prevent many from making a fully informed choice. The effect of the new NLRB rule on union win rates also could be significant. In union organizing drives, organizers often conduct their activities underground and employers have no hint of organizing activity until the union files its petition at the NLRB. The NLRB’s election data show that, under the Board’s old rules, unions’ average win rate during the period 2004 through 2013 was 63.3 percent. By effectively shortening the time between petition and election, the NLRB rule is expected to increase organized labor’s win rate. Time and future election results will tell whether that expectation will be fulfilled. The early election-results data are incomplete, but based on NLRB docket information, during the Relevant Period in 2014, the Board conducted 240 elections, and during the Relevant Period in 2015, as of June 5, 2015, the Board had conducted 71 elections and had an additional 151 elections scheduled. The results in the 151 remaining elections, as well as the results in other cases filed since the Relevant Period in 2015, will determine whether the new rule will produce a higher win rate for unions. So far, based on NLRB’s reported docket activity as of June 5, 2015, the unions’ win rate of 62 percent in the 71 elections completed as of June 5, 2015, is consistent with unions’ 10-year average win rate of 63.3 percent. With more cases over time and more complete docket information, the data will enable more confidence in analytical conclusions relating to election results, which will permit more focused employer strategies.
The NLRB rule, also known as the “quickie election” rule or the “ambush election” rule, eliminates pre-election evidentiary hearings and requests for review and defers decision on virtually all issues relating to appropriateness of units and voter eligibility now decided at the pre-election stage. The rule also expands the personal information relating to employees which employers are required to disclose to unions in voter eligibility lists known as “Excelsior lists.” Specifically, the Board will require that both telephone numbers, including mobile phone numbers, and email addresses, if available, be included along with employees’ names and addresses. In addition, the NLRB now requires that the employer disclose the employee’s work location, shift, and classification.
Methodology. The results stated above are based on NLRB reports and docket activity as of June 5, 2015, in the cases identified in Table 1 and Table 2 at the end of this article. The NLRB reports and dockets are available at www.nlrb.gov. Dates of election and mail-ballot vote counting for cases filed during the period April 5, 2015, through June 5, 2015, were obtained primarily by examining Notices of Election and other docketed documents. Many of the cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 were still in progress as of June 5, 2015, the latest date on which documents in the cases were examined. Accordingly, while examination of the dockets for 222 cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 produced election or vote-counting dates, the dockets in other cases filed during the Relevant Period in 2015 and generally cases filed later in the period, did not have Notices of Election, Certifications of Representatives, Certifications of Results or other documents which would provide dates of election and vote-counting or election results.
Dates of election and mail-ballot counting for cases filed during the period April 5, 2014, through June 5, 2014, were obtained from reports entitled “NLRB Elections with 1 Labor Organization,” “NLRB Elections with 2 Labor Organizations,” and “NLRB Elections with 3 Labor Organizations” and documents available on the NLRB’s dockets.
Timothy M. McConville leads the labor and employment law group at Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. in Reston, Virginia. Mr. McConville may be reached at 703-218-2119 or timothy.mcconville@ofplaw.com. Follow him at laborandemploymentlawcocktail.com and on Twitter @worklawguy. The author extends sincere appreciation to John Raudabaugh, former NLRB member, current staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Ave Maria School of Law, who provided invaluable counsel during the research for and preparation of this article. Deep appreciation is also extended to Shannon Bandler, Chelsea Steever, and Christina Messino whose skills in Microsoft Excel made this study possible.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 06/10/2015 at 05:22 PM in collective bargaining, employment law, grievance, labor relations, Legal, litigation, NLRA, organized labor, Right to Work, unfair labor practice, union | Permalink
OFCCP Posts New Sample AAP Web Page by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") has posted a new Sample Affirmative Action Programs Web page that contractors subject to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) may find useful. The new page contains sample transition year Section 503 and VEVRAA AAPs that show how a contractor might satisfy the regulatory AAP requirements in its initial year. The sample AAPs are for illustrative and technical assistance purposes only and do not represent the only appropriate or acceptable AAP format. Nor are the sample AAPs legal advice. Employers should consult with an experienced labor and employment attorney to determine whether they are covered by any OFCCP requirement to have a written affirmative action plan and before undertaking to create a plan. OFCCP has indicated that it will soon also post sample four-year Section 503 and VEVRAA AAPs that show how a contractor might develop Section 503 and VEVRAA AAPs containing three years of applicant and hiring data. A sample Executive Order 11246 AAP is also on the new Web page.
The Sample Affirmative Action Programs Web page can be found on the OFCCP web page at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/AAPs/AAPs.htm.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 05/27/2015 at 03:59 PM in affirmative action, discrimination, EEO, employment law, government contracting, Legal, OFCCP | Permalink
Vote Now, Understand Later: NLRB’s Ambush Election Rule Becomes Effective by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
The National Labor Relations Board’s final rule governing the processing of representation petitions became effective today. The rule, which was published in December 2014, will dramatically shorten the time between the filing of a certification petition and the conduct of an NLRB election. The new Board procedures will boost union officials’ success in organizing campaigns at the expense of employees who now will have limited time to learn how a union in the workplace really will affect them. “Vote now, understand later” is how dissenting NLRB members Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson III appropriately summarized the rule in their dissent. They also instructed that the new rule’s “election now, hearing later” approach to NLRB procedure effectively denies important due process safeguards formerly available to the parties in petition cases.
The following summarizes the various ways the final rule changes or codifies the current practice. Electronic Filing. Representation petitions may be filed with the Board electronically. The prior rules required hard-copy or facsimile filing.
Service. Representation petitions (and related documents) must be served by the petitioner. The Board’s prior rules did not require the petitioner to serve a copy of its petition on the other parties.
Showing of Interest. At the same time the petition is filed with the Board, the petitioner must also provide evidence that employees support the petition (the “showing of interest”). Petitioner must also provide the name and contact information of its representative. The prior rules gave the petitioner 48 hours after the petition to file the showing of interest.
Mandatory Notice-Posting. When a petition is filed, the employer must post and distribute to employees a Board notice about the petition and the potential for an election to follow. Under prior practice, such notice was voluntary (and less detailed). Hearing in 8 Days. The pre-election hearing will generally be scheduled to open 8 days from notice of the hearing. This change imposes more uniformity across the regions and eliminates significant variations in the time between notice of hearing and the hearing itself, which variations reportedly ranged from 7 days to 10 days in some regions to as many as 13 to 15 days in other regions.
No Lengthy Continuances. The pre-election hearing will continue from day to day until completed, absent extraordinary circumstances. Prior practice did not address the standard for granting lengthy continuances.
Position Statement Required to Preserve Arguments. Non-petitioning parties are required to state a position responding to the petition in writing 1 day before the pre-election hearing is set to open. The statement must identify the issues they wish to litigate before the election; litigation inconsistent with the statement will not be permitted. Timely amendments to the statement may be made on a showing of good cause. The employer must also provide a list of the names, shifts, work locations, and job classifications of the employees in the petitioned-for unit, and any other employees that it seeks to add to the unit. The statement must also identify the party’s representative for purposes of the proceeding. The new “pleading” requirements will likely weigh far more heavily on employers than on unions. Prior practice requested parties to state positions and provide a list of employees and job classifications before the hearing, but did not require production of such information prior to the hearing. Prior practice in some regions required parties to take positions on the issues orally at the hearing, but the practice was not uniform. Petitioner Response Required at Hearing. At the start of the hearing, the petitioner is required to respond on the record to the issues raised by the other parties in their statements of position. Litigation inconsistent with the response will not be permitted. If there is a dispute between the parties, the hearing officer has discretion to ask each party to describe what evidence it has in support of its position, i.e., make an offer of proof.
Limited Purpose of Hearing. The purpose of the pre-election hearing, to determine whether there is a “question of representation,” is identified in the rule, which will permit the regional director to prevent litigation of various issues the Board believes to be a waste of resources. Prior rules did not expressly state the purpose of the hearing. Evidence Limited to Purpose of Hearing. Once the issues are presented, the regional director will decide which, if any, voter eligibility questions should be litigated before an election is held. These decisions will be made bearing in mind the purpose of the hearing. Generally, only evidence that is relevant to a question that will be decided may be introduced at the pre-election hearing. Prior rules required, for example, litigation of voter eligibility issues that the regional director will now be able to exclude from the pre-hearing election. No Briefing. The hearing will conclude with oral argument, and no written briefing will be permitted unless the regional director grants permission to file such a brief. Prior rules permitted parties to file briefs.
No Transfer to Board. The regional director must decide the matter, and may not sua sponte transfer it to the Board. The prior rule provided a transfer procedure.
Review Only for Compelling Reasons. Absent waiver, a party may request Board review of action of a regional director delegated under Section 3(b) of the Act. Requests will only be granted for compelling reasons. Requests may be filed any time during the proceeding, or within 14 days after a final disposition of the case by the regional director. The prior rules included a variety of means for asking for Board review, including a “request for review” which only applied to the direction of election; other mechanisms for postelection review which varied depending upon the type of procedure chosen by the regional director or the form of election agreement; and a catchall “special permission to appeal.” Review of the direction of the election had to be sought before the election. Limited Stays. A request for review will not operate as a stay unless specifically ordered by the Board. Stays and/or requests for expedited consideration will only be granted when necessary. The prior rules included an automatic stay of the count of ballots (“impounding the ballots”) in any case where a request was either granted or pending before the Board at the time of the election. A stay should not be routine, but should be an extraordinary form of relief.
No Stays In Anticipation of Review Requests. Elections will no longer be automatically stayed in anticipation of requests for review. The prior rules generally required the election which followed a Decision and Direction of Election to be held between 25 and 30 days after the direction of election. The purpose of this requirement was to permit requests for review to be ruled on by the Board in the interim. This change accounts for much of the time that was available under the prior rule, and that will now be lost, for employees to learn and debate about the election issues. Election Details Set in Direction of Election. The regional director will ordinarily specify in the direction of election the election details, such as the date, time, place, and type of election and the payroll period for eligibility. Parties will take positions on these matters in writing in the statement of position and on the record before the close of the hearing. Under prior practice, election details were typically addressed after the direction of election was issued.
Elections on Earliest Date. The long-standing instruction from the Casehandling Manual that the regional director will set the election for the earliest date practicable is codified.
Notice of Election Transmitted Earlier. The regional director will ordinarily transmit the notice of election at the same time as the direction of election. Both may be transmitted electronically. Previously, the notice was transmitted by mail after the direction of election.
Electronic Notices to Employees. If the employer customarily communicates with its employees electronically, it must distribute all election notices to employees electronically, in addition to posting paper notices at the workplace. Prior rules required only paper notices.
Excelsior Lists Required Earlier With Emails/Phones. Within 2 business days of the direction of election, employers must electronically transmit to the other parties and the regional director a list of employees with contact information, including more modern forms of contact information such as personal email addresses and phone numbers if the employer has such contact information in its possession. The list should also include shifts, job classifications, and work locations. The list may only be used for certain purposes but the rule provides no specific remedy for any misuse of the list. Prior caselaw gave employers 7 days to produce a list of names and home addresses and send it to the Board, which then served the list on the parties. Offers of Proof Required for Blocking Charges. When a charge is filed alleging the commission of unfair labor practices that could compromise the fairness of the election, the regional director has discretion to delay (or “block”) the election until the issue can be resolved. Any party seeking to block the election must simultaneously file an offer of proof and promptly make witnesses available. This rule is intended to expedite investigation of and help weed out meritless or abusive blocking charges.
Offers of Proof for Obligations Due Earlier. After the election, parties have 7 days to file both objections and offers of proof in support. Objections, but not offers, must be served by the objector on other parties. Prior rules gave 7 days for objections but 14 days for evidence in support of the objections. Post-Election Hearings Within 21 Days. If necessary, a post-election hearing on challenges and/or objections will be scheduled to open 21 days after the tally of ballots or as soon as practicable thereafter. Prior rules set no timeline for opening the hearing.
Final Decisions Required. In every case, the regional director will be required to issue a final decision. Where applicable, the regional director’s decision will be subject to requests for review under the procedure described in item 13 above.
Housekeeping Changes. Finally, the rule eliminates a number of redundancies and consolidates and reorganizes the regulations so that they may be more easily understood. Timothy M. McConville leads the labor and employment group at the law firm of Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. in Reston, Virginia. Mr. McConville may be reached at 703-218-2119 or timothy.mcconville@ofplaw.com. Follow him at laborandemploymentlawcocktail.com and on Twitter @worklawguy.
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 04/14/2015 at 10:27 AM in collective bargaining, labor relations, Legal, NLRA, organized labor, Right to Work, union | Permalink
Final NLRB "Ambush Election" Rule Will Boost Union Organizing by Timothy M. McConville, Esq.
In the years 2002-2010, more than 90% of representation elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of a petition. During the same time, the median time between petition and election was 37-38 days. Since 2010, the median time from petition to election was 38 days. The rule does not mandate that an election occur within a certain period of time but, by overhauling NLRB representation case procedures, the rule is expected to reduce campaign time to 21-24 days, and possibly less. Two Board members, Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson, III, dissented from the Board’s final rule, citing, among other problems, its destructive effect on employers’ and employees’ ability to communicate among themselves regarding the prospect of a union in the workplace. “The Final Rule has become the Mount Everest of regulations: Massive in scale and unforgiving in its effect," the dissenters wrote. "The Rule's primary purpose and effect remain . . . : Initial union representation elections must occur as soon as possible." As a result, the dissenters asserted that "[t]he Rule improperly shortens the time needed for employees to understand relevant issues, compelling them to 'vote now, understand later.'"
Posted by Timothy M. McConville, Esq. on 01/07/2015 at 05:25 PM in collective bargaining, employment law, labor relations, Legal, NLRA, organized labor, Right to Work, union | Permalink
WWW Labor & Employment Law Cocktail