NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

[ABFwife]

Until we can get Trump out of the White House, nothing will change for the better.

As not just a new year but a new decade begins, we know from the closing days of 2019 that the National Labor Relations Board is rolling back pro-employee/union rulings issued during the Obama era, and will likely continue to do so. Not only does the labor law landscape look remarkably different today than it did at the end of the Obama-era administration, so do many other federal agencies and policies.

Throughout 2019, the NLRB reversed many previous administrations' decisions on labor-management relations and labor-law compliance. Current NLRB rule changes favor the interests of employers. These developments include election procedures, workplace rules, employer's email and computer usage, independent contractor standards, policies requiring employee confidentiality in workplace investigations, joint employer changes and more.

What can we expect in 2020? The same thing, but more of it.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nl...o-be-an-35439/

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

Another decision rendered by the NLRB which sides in favor of the employer. The Teamsters has said this decision will have a negative effect on working Americans.

NLRB restores joint-employer standard in final rule

Trucking companies are expected to benefit from a new federal rule aimed at more clearly defining what constitutes joint-employer relationships.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will issue the rule Wednesday, and it is expected to go into effect April 27, barring a court challenge.
The final rule restores a standard for determining joint-employer status that had been applied for several decades before 2015, the NLRB stated in a news release, but with “greater precision, clarity, and detail.”

For trucking companies, the ramifications of a joint-employer relationship would come up often in the case of strike situations, according to Jack Finklea, a labor law specialist at the law firm Scopelitis Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which pointed out that the 2015 NLRB decision known as Browning-Ferris, which the new rulemaking overrides, was a case involving the Teamsters.
“We are deeply disappointed in this decision, which will have a negative and tangible impact on hard working Americans,” the union said in a statement to FreightWaves. “The [Browning-Ferris] ruling … protects millions of workers from manipulations by companies calculated to impair employee rights by playing shell games over what entity in fact controls their working conditions. Rolling it back will cause great harm.”

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/nl...-in-final-rule

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

For a better understanding about post #2 and the NLRB decision, read this article.

Labor board deals final blow to Obama-era effort to unionize fast-food industry

The National Labor Relations Board, the main federal labor law enforcement agency, rolled back an Obama administration-era effort to help unions organize franchisor corporations such as McDonald's through the so-called joint employer rule, dealing a blow to organized labor.

Joint employer referred to when two businesses were so tightly aligned that one could be said to be responsible for another's workplace policies. Prior to the Obama administration, this only applied if one business had "direct control" over another. During the Obama years, the much looser "indirect control" standard was adopted. Tuesday's announcement means the direct-control standard is the norm again.

The seemingly minor rewrite to an obscure legal standard followed a coordinated push by labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union, which were seeking to organize the fast-food industry. Business trade groups mounted an equally fierce pushback to get the Trump administration to restore the pre-Obama standard. The Labor Department readopted the earlier standard last month. The NLRB followed suit Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-food-industry

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

Maybe it's not a good year for this employer.
After the NLRB handed down a “bargaining order” to this company, it is clearly a win for the union and the employees.
Can't say what will happen down the road, but the employer may think twice before attempting the same thing.

Ouch! Company Ordered To Reopen, Rehire Illegally Fired Employees

Few things – if any – under American labor law are as punitive as what’s known as a “bargaining order” from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and it is exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, a company which flagrantly violates the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) restrictions on employer conduct relative to worker unionization still faces this draconian penalty. This was illustrated by a NLRB case issued last week in which a company was forced to reopen its business, rehire terminated employees, recognize a union, and bargain with it. Ouch.

The NLRB found that these actions were so egregious that they warranted significant penalties. It ordered the company to reopen, rehire the mechanics, recognize the Teamsters union (without even having an election), and bargain with them. In the NLRB’s view, the company’s actions were so severe that no fair union election could take place (i.e., employees would be too afraid to vote for a union after being unlawfully terminated), so it issued the dreaded bargaining order.

This case is a reminder that very specific rules under the NLRA come into play when employees express interest in forming a union. Employers who misstep in this context can face extraordinary penalties from the NLRB.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article...ired-employees

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

More attempted changes at the NLRB. Why change protections for employees that have been in place since 2002. Out of spite ?

Trump is trying to rescind LGBTQ worker protections at the National Labor Relations Board

The Trump administration is trying to rescind protections for LGBTQ workers at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that have been in place since 2002, prompting outrage from the NLRB Professional Association, an organization that represents NLRB workers.
NLRBPA President Karen Cook sent a letter on Thursday, March 5 to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that LGBTQ Nation has obtained. The letter informs Feinstein of how two administration officials are attempting to get rid of protections for LGBTQ workers.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law, particularly when it comes to collective bargaining and unjust labor practices.
Currently, LGBTQ workers at the NLRB are protected by terms of a collective bargaining agreement that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2002. In 2017, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreed to by the NLRB and the NLRBPA also banned discrimination based on gender identity.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/03/...lations-board/

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

More changes could be coming to union election rules as set forth by the NLRB.

NLRB Proposes Third Set of Changes to Union Election Rules

The National Labor Relations Board has proposed changing its union election procedures for voter lists and military ballots, marking the agency’s third rulemaking during the Trump administration aimed at amending how workers vote for their bargaining representatives.
Employers would no longer have to give unions workers’ personal email addresses, home telephone numbers, and cell phone numbers on the lists of eligible voter information they must provide in advance of pending elections, according to the NLRB’s proposed rulemaking announced Tuesday. The board cited employee privacy concerns in moving to eliminate that contact information from the voter lists.
The NLRB also proposed providing absentee ballots for workers who are on military leave. Union elections can accommodate workers who are serving in the military without causing excessive delay, the board said.

AFL-CIO General Counsel Craig Becker said the latest proposal, like the Trump NLRB’s earlier rulemakings, is “aimed solely at satisfying employer demands to tilt the law in their favor.” There’s no evidence of abuse—or even complaints of abuse—related to worker information that’s required on eligible voter lists, he said.

Provided the Senate confirms Republican Marvin Kaplan to a second term on the board, Republican members will retain majority control of the NLRB until William Emanuel’s term expires in August 2021 even if Biden becomes president. The Senate is also slated to approve Democrat Lauren McFerran’s return to the board.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-...election-rules

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

If your a union steward, or you ask your steward for help, he may not be able to provide that now if he engages in any actions that violates the code of conduct. Management doesn't have to play the same game. They can insult you at a meeting and nothing can be done.

Trump Labor Board Upends Special Status of Union Stewards

On July 21 the Trump-appointed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) eliminated the special legal protections enjoyed by union grievance handlers for the past 70 years. In the interest of promoting workplace “civility,” the Board announced that employers will no longer be restrained from disciplining or discharging stewards or officers who use profanity or engage in other “abusive” actions in violation of an employer’s enforced code of conduct, even when these actions happen in the course of heated meetings with management.
The new decision, known as General Motors, overrules scores of NLRB rulings permitting grievance representatives to engage in “zealous” advocacy.

Cutting through the noise, the Board is really telling stewards to show respect no matter what a manager says or does. This is the same approach mandated by the British Master-Servant Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries—with firings replacing imprisonment.

Under its new standards, the Board is likely to uphold penalties for “abusive language” up to and including discharge.

https://labornotes.org/2020/09/trump...union-stewards

[fxstc07]

Re: NLRB 2020 Predictor: It’s Good to be an Employer

Think the Trump administration cares about union members ?
Think again.

Trump’s NLRB bans bargaining over COVID-19 worker safety issues

In a series of five memos to their regional directors, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) instructed them to dismiss various cases regarding COVID-19 related charges against employers.
The board concluded that an employer is not obligated to engage in midterm bargaining regarding union proposals for paid sick leave and hazard pay because of the ongoing pandemic. They also said that an employer does not have to bargain about a temporary closure.
In regard to workers speaking out about a dangerous situation on the job, the board has decided that an individual speaking out about a company’s COVID safety procedure is not protected speech. This means that they can be fired by their employer.

This guidance came after a case was filed by a nurse who was fired after for refusing to work at a nursing home that was requiring workers to share isolation gowns.

https://labortribune.com/trumps-nlrb...safety-issues/