Union Wrongly "Reminds" Employers to Post New NLRB Notice by January 31

Posted by Thomas R. Trachsel on January 30, 2012

Blog Pic - False Stamp.jpgThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has adopted a rule that would require employers under its jurisdiction to post notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.  (We previously addressed this posting requirement here, here, and here).

SEIU Healthcare Minnesota has been sending letters to employers, stating that they are required to post the notice by January 31, 2012. (A redacted version of the SEIU’s letter is available here).

As we advised on December 23, 2011, the effective date of the posting requirement is now April 30, 2012.  Although the scheduled effective date was at one time January 31, the NLRB announced on December 23 that it has postponed the effective date to April 30. (The NLRB’s December 23 announcement of the postponed effective date is here).

Thus, contrary to SEIU’s letter, you do not have to post the new NLRB notice (in hardcopy or electronic form) by January 31.  Moreover, it should be noted that litigation over the posting requirement is pending, and we expect that at least one U.S. District Court will address the validity of the posting requirement prior to the April 30 effective date.

We will of course provide you with any important updates concerning the new posting requirement.

NLRB Delays Notice Posting Requirement (Again)

Posted by Charles E. Feuss on December 23, 2011

NLRB - GIF.gifOn December 23, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board announced that it is delaying implementation of its new rule which requires employers to post a notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.  The rule was scheduled to take effect on January 31, 2012.  The new effective date of the posting requirement is April 30, 2012.

The Board has agreed to delay the posting requirement at the suggestion of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia.  The Court is currently considering a pending lawsuit challenging the legality of the new rule.  While the Agency has argued that the posting requirement is a mere statement of employee rights under the law which the Board is empowered to enforce, opponents claim that the posting requirement is outside the Board’s grant of authority from Congress.

If the Court does not enjoin the rule, employers will be required to comply with the posting requirement starting on April 30th.  Note that this is the same day that the Board’s new procedures for representation cases are scheduled to go into effect.  (An article on that topic is available here.)

This is the second time the Board has delayed the implementation of the new posting rule.  The first delay was on the Board’s own initiative and was intended to give employers more time to prepare for the implementation process.  (See our previous report that is available here.)

The posting rule may or may not survive legal challenge.  For now, however, there is no urgency in clearing off that bulletin board space or uploading a copy of the notice to your intranet page for employees.  April 30th is the earliest date on which compliance will be required.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Labor Board Adopts Procedural Changes for Handling Representation Cases

Posted by Thomas R. Trachsel on December 22, 2011

Blog Pic - VotingOn December 22, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board announced that it is making certain changes to its procedures for processing representation cases.  Although the new procedures are primarily addressed to cases in which the parties are unable to reach an election agreement, the changes are significant for all such cases.

The new procedures are scheduled to take effect on April 30, 2012, although legal challenges have already been filed.

The procedures that have been adopted consist of some – but not all – of the changes that were proposed by the Board back in June of 2011.  The remainder of the proposed changes (which would significantly shorten the time period leading up to a union election in all cases) have not been dropped, but are merely on hold pending further consideration by the Board.

A full article discussing the adopted changes is posted on the Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt website, available here.

Rifts Between Labor and Management Increase

Posted by Grant T. Collins on August 30, 2011

Blog Pic - Striking Worker.jpgEven as the economy once again begins to sputter, the overall strength of the U.S. economy has spurred a marked increase in the number of labor disputes. This trend stands in stark contrast to 2009 when, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were only 5 major work stoppages (i.e., those involving 1,000 workers or more), the fewest since 1947. The figure ballooned to 11 in 2010, and recent activity suggests there will be another increase in 2011.

On the East coast, 45,000 Verizon workers went on strike in early August, after the company sought concessions from its landline workers to help offset declining revenue in the division. Despite an inability to agree on a new contract, employees agreed last week to return to work provided Verizon agreed to revise the manner in which collective bargaining would proceed.

Out West, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents approximately 62,000 workers at various grocery stores in California, including Ralphs Grocery Co., Albertsons Inc., and Safeway Inc.'s Vons supermarkets, voted overwhelmingly in favor of authorizing a strike if union negotiators cannot reach agreement with the companies on a bargaining contract to replace the one that expired March 6.

More locally, on August 1, 1,300 union workers were locked out of American Crystal Sugar’s five sugar processing plants in Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa. The lockout is the company’s first labor impasse in 30 years. American Crystal accounts for 38 percent of the country’s production of sugar from beets and 15 percent overall.

Prior to the lockout, American Crystal offered its employees a 17% pay increase over five years. The offer included a 4% increase in the first year, a $2,000 one-time bonus, followed by annual percentage increases of 3, 2, 2, and 2 percentage points. The previous contract had offered 2 percent annual pay increases. But, the union rejected the offer, citing concerns about provisions relating to subcontracting and health care costs.  On August 24, both sides agreed to resume negotiations.

Bottom Line

Only time will tell whether this trend will continue. But, with hopes fading for a strong economic recovery in the near future, negotiators for labor and management will likely find themselves continuing to battle over a shrinking piece of the pie.