In our series discussing the new workplace initiatives under the Biden Administration, we will next address the Biden Administration’s desire to make significant changes in National Labor Relation Board (“NLRB”’ or “Board”) policy and to roll back the labor law precedent of the Trump Administration’s NLRB.  The Biden Administration’s labor policy through the NLRB will focus on two primary goals: (1) the promotion of collective bargaining and (2) the protection of employees’ rights to join and form unions.  In pursuing this focused labor policy, the Biden Administration is keeping the promise it made during the Presidential campaign that it will pursue policies and the development of labor law that serves the interests of unions.  All employers will need to pay attention for the next four years to the NLRB’s development and application of the Biden Administration’s labor policies.

Through the former NLRB’s General Counsel, Peter Robb, the Trump Administration made significant pro-management policy changes and shepherded pro-management developments in labor law under the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA” or the “Act”).  Under the Obama Administration, the Democratically–led Board took an expansive view on how the Act should be interpreted and enforced, including a very broad reading of Section 7 of the Act, which provides that employees have the right to “engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” The Trump-era Board then narrowed this expanded reach of Section 7.

During the Trump Administration, many of the Obama-era Board policies and decisions were overturned by the Board or by the federal courts, including: (i) overturning of the Board’s Specialty Healthcare decision that allowed unions to define their own bargaining units, including the recognition of micro-units; (ii) allowing employers, in the Board’s decision of Johnson Controls, to withdraw union recognition at the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement if the employer can prove that the union does not continue to have majority support amongst bargaining unit employees; (iii) the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems overturning the Board’s Murphy Oil decision where the Supreme Court held that an employer’s requirement that employees agree to class- and collective-action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements does not violate the NLRA; (iv) the Board’s MV Transportation decision that applied a “contract coverage” analysis instead of a “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard in determining whether an employer with a collective bargaining agreement has the duty to bargain over, or has the right to implement, work or safety rules without bargaining that are within the scope and compass of the parties’ existing collective bargaining agreement; (v) overturning, in Caesars Entertainment, the Board’s 2014 controversial Purple Communications decision, which had held that employees have the right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes, including communicating about union organizing; and (vi) overturning, in Apogee Retail, the Board’s decision in Banner Estrella Medical Center where the Board ruled that employees have a Section 7 right to discuss discipline and ongoing investigations involving themselves and other co-workers despite an employer’s confidentiality policy that prohibits such communications during a workplace investigation.

To follow through on his pledge made during his campaign to be “the most pro-union president,” President Biden, as part of his first executive actions, took the unprecedented step to fire Mr. Robb as the NLRB’s General Counsel.  President Biden broke 85 years of tradition by being the first U.S. President to remove an incumbent NLRB general counsel before the end of his term.  Mr. Robb’s term was set to end in mid-November.  President Biden’s termination of Mr. Robb signals a shift in NLRB policy objectives under the Biden Administration and sets the stage for a roll back of the Trump-era NLRB policies and precedent.

President Biden quickly replaced Mr. Robb with Peter Ohr as NLRB’s acting General Counsel.  Mr. Ohr comes from the NLRB’s Chicago Regional Office where he was its Regional Director.  Mr. Ohr did not waste any time as the NLRB’s acting General Counsel when, in a two-day span, he rescinded 10 Trump-era NLRB General Counsel Memoranda and two NLRB Operations-Management Memoranda issued by his predecessor.  Mr. Ohr cited that the rescinded memoranda guidances were either not necessary or in conflict with the NLRB’s policy objective of encouraging collective bargaining.  Those guidances rescinded by Mr. Ohr, among others, included: (i) holding that employers may violate the Act when they enter “neutrality agreements” with unions to assist unions in their organizing efforts; (ii) on handbook rules developed following the Board’s decision in Boeing; (iii) on a union’s duty to properly notify employees subject to a union security clause of their Beck rights not to pay dues unrelated to collective bargaining and to provide further notice of the reduced amount of dues and fees for dues objectors in the initial Beck notice; (iv) on deferral of NLRB Charges under Dubo Manufacturing Company that instructed NLRB Regions to defer under Dubo or consider deferral of all Section 8(a)(1), (3), (5) and 8(b)(1)(A), and (3) cases in which a grievance was filed; and (v) on instructing NLRB Regions and Board agents on how to proceed during investigations in connections with securing the testimony of former supervisors and former agents and how audio recordings should be dealt with during investigations.

In the meantime, President Biden has nominated Jennifer Abruzzo to become the next NLRB General Counsel.  Ms. Abruzzo was the second-ranking NLRB official under the Obama Administration as the agency’s Deputy General Counsel.  Most recently, Ms. Abruzzo was special counsel for the Communications Workers of America.  The White House referred to Ms. Abruzzo as “[a] tested and experienced leader, [who] will work to enforce U.S. labor laws that safeguard the rights of workers to join together to improve their wages and working conditions and protect against unfair labor practices.” Richard Trumpka, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) supported Ms. Abruzzo’s nomination by stating that “the days of the NLRB actively blocking workers from organizing a union are over.” Ms. Abruzzo’s nomination will have to be confirmed by consent of the Senate, which is currently evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.  Ms. Abruzzo’s road to confirmation could be bumpy given the strong criticism by some Republican Senators of President Biden’s unprecedented decision to fire Ms. Abruzzo’s predecessor, Mr. Robb, before the end of his term.

Biden Administration Will Push Pro-Union Legislation, Including the PRO Act

Besides the change in the NLRB’s General Counsel and the effects that change will have on the development of federal labor policy, the Biden Administration, together with the Democratically controlled Congress, is also planning sweeping legislative changes to the Act with the objective to make union organizing easier for employees.  The proposed legislation that employers should pay most attention to is the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R.2474 and S.1306).

Specifically, pro-union allies of the Biden Administration are pushing the administration to pass the PRO Act, which would be an overhaul of federal labor law under the NLRA.  The PRO Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives passed in February 2020, includes in its current form several controversial and seismic shifts in established federal labor law, including:

• Permitting the NLRB to assess civil penalties against employers, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000, for each unfair labor practice violation, which also includes personal liability for managers of alleged violations;
• Providing employees with a private cause of action against an employer for unfair labor practice violations;
• Permitting secondary strikes by a labor organization to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization;
• Terminating the right of employers to bring claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes;
• Superseding state’s right-to-work laws, by requiring employees represented by a union to contribute fees to the labor organization for the cost of such representation;
• Expanding unfair labor practices to include prohibitions against replacement of, or discrimination against, workers who participate in strikes;
• Making it an unfair labor practice to require or coerce employees to attend employer meetings designed to discourage union membership;
• Prohibiting employers from entering into agreements with employees under which employees waive the right to pursue or join collective or class-action litigation;
• Requiring the NLRB to promulgate rules requiring employers to post notices of employees’ labor rights and protections and establishing penalties for failing to comply with such requirement;
• Prohibiting employers from participating in any NLRB representation proceedings;
• Requiring employers to provide a list of voters to the labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit in an NLRB-directed election;
• In initial contract negotiations for a first contract, compelling employers and unions to mediation with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in the event the parties do not reach an agreement within 90 days after commencing negotiations;
• Compelling employers to bargain with a labor organization that has received a majority of valid votes for representation in an NLRB-directed election; and
• Providing statutory authority for the requirement that the NLRB must set preelection hearings to begin not later than 8 days after notifying the labor organization of such a petition and set postelection hearings to begin not later than 14 days after an objection to a decision has been filed.

President Biden promised during his campaign to sign the PRO Act.  This legislation, however, is currently stalled in the U.S. Senate and may face an uphill battle given the Senate’s current cloture rule to end a filibuster—which requires 60 votes to cut off debate on most matters.  Consequently, to the extent that the PRO Act is subject to a filibuster in the Senate, it is unlikely that the PRO Act will become law in its current form.  Nonetheless, all employers should pay careful attention to the PRO Act and its movement through the U.S. Congress.

What Employers Should and Can Do

Given the Biden Administration’s priority of encouraging employees to unionize, and with the pro-labor individuals that President Biden has placed in top leadership positions in the U.S. Department of Labor, including the nomination of Marty Walsh, the former two-term mayor of Boston and former union leader, to become the next Secretary of Labor, union organizing activity is likely to increase.  To lawfully counter those activities, employers can help ensure that employees are accurately informed about unionization to allow employees to make free and clear decisions without coercion about their rights under Section 7.  To do so, employers should make sure that their supervisors are properly trained on how to recognize the signs of union organizing activities and how to lawfully respond to employees’ questions about unionization.

As always, the labor and employment law team at O’Neil Cannon  is here for employers to answer your questions and address your concerns about the changes to federal labor policy and law under the Biden Administration.  We encourage you to reach out with any questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have.

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) struck down an employer’s work rule that prohibited employees from recording workplace meetings and conversations without management approval, finding that such a policy could prevent employees from engaging in protected activity, which is protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In this case, the employee handbook had, like many employee handbooks, a policy prohibiting employees from recording company meetings and other aspects of the workplace. These policies are typically put in place to protect employees’ privacy and to protect employers’ confidential information and trade secrets. However, a 2–1 majority of the NLRB found that employees could reasonably understand such a rule to prohibit unionization efforts or engagement in other collective or concerted activities to advance their job-related interests. The NLRB held that photo, audio, and video recording at the workplace could be a protected activity under certain circumstances, such as documenting picketing activities, unsafe working conditions, discussions regarding terms and conditions of employment, or an employer inconsistently applying workplace rules. Because the rule in question was simply a blanket rule prohibiting recording, the NLRB ordered the company to remove the policy.

The NLRB is showing no signs of slowing down in its quest to expand the reach of Section 7 far beyond the traditional view of “protected, concerted activity.” Employers should carefully review and consider their workplace policies in light of this ruling and other NLRB decisions that have found other workplace rules infringing upon employees’ Section 7 rights. Employers’ rules restricting use of recording devices need to either be tied to particular employer interests, such as maintaining a customer’s privacy or an employer’s trade secrets, or be narrow enough to only prohibit recording in limited circumstances. Otherwise, employers, even non-union employers, could be subject to an NLRB unfair labor charge challenging their workplace recording policies.

On March 18, 2015, the NLRB General Counsel issued a report concerning recent cases that raise significant legal and policy issues regarding employee handbook rules.  Recently, the NLRB has been focusing on non-union employer’s handbooks and whether they violate Section 7 of the NLRA, which permits employees to discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and to otherwise engage in protected concerted activity.  The most clear violation of Section 7 would be a ban on union activity; however, if an employee could reasonably construe a rule or policy to prohibit activities protected by Section 7, the NRLB will find that it is in violation of the law.  The report gives specific examples of handbook policies that were found lawful and unlawful and why.  The report specifically states that even well-intentioned rules that would inhibit employees from engaging in activities protected by the Act are not allowed under the law.  The rules and policies that are most frequently called into question are those covering confidentiality, professionalism, anti-harassment, trademark, photography/recording, and media contact.

Confidentiality policies cannot specifically prohibit employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment (e.g., wages, hours, workplace complaints), nor can the policies be reasonably understood to prohibit such discussions.  Policies cannot broadly define “employee” or “personnel” information as confidential.  However, the NLRB does recognize that employers have a substantial and legitimate interest in maintaining the privacy of certain business information.

Employee conduct policies will run afoul of the NLRA if they prohibit employees from engaging in disrespectful, negative, inappropriate, or rude conduct toward the employer or management absent sufficient clarification or context.  Even false or defamatory statements can find protection under Section 7 unless they are “maliciously false.”  Employers can promulgate blanket rules that require employees to be respectful and professional to clients and competitors because there is a sufficient business interest in that behavior.  Employers are also permitted to ban insubordinate behavior.  However, employers cannot ban employees from negative or  inappropriate discussions with their fellow employees because employees have the right to argue and debate with each other about unions, management, and the terms and conditions of employment, which can sometimes be contentious.  Therefore, anti-harassment rules cannot be overly broad either.  Employers cannot ban employees from discussing terms and conditions of employment with third parties, including news media.  Although employers may designate who can make official statements to the media on behalf of the company, they cannot ban employees from speaking to third parties on their own behalf or on behalf of other employees.

Although employers have an interest in protecting their intellectual property, the NLRB has taken the stance that rules prohibiting employees’ fair use of that property are unlawful.  This “fair use” includes using things such as company names and logos on picket signs, leaflets, and other protest material because these are non-commercial uses.  According to the report, employees have a Section 7 right to photograph and make recordings in furtherance of their protected concerted activity, including the right to use personal devices to take such pictures and recordings.  Therefore, a total ban on photography, recordings, or use of personal devices is overbroad if it can be read to prohibit use during breaks and other non-work time.

Employer rules regulating when employees can leave work are unlawful if employees could reasonably read them as forbidding protected strikes and walkouts, as the right to go on strike is a fundamental Section 7 right.  Policies should reflect that leaving their posts for reasons unrelated to protected activity will subject employees to discipline.

Because Section 7 allows employees to engage in activity to improve their terms and conditions of employment, which may be in conflict with the interests of an employer, broad conflict-of-interest policies are unlawful.  Employer policies should be limited to legitimate business interests.

The differences between what is lawful and what is not are incredibly nuanced, and the General Counsel’s report did not present what could be considered “bright line” rules.  The NLRB has stated that it will read rules in context with other rules and not in isolation, which could lead potentially unlawful policies to be held lawful in context.  Overall, the emphasis is that rules need to be narrowly tailored and include context and examples in order to steer clear of violating the NLRA.

It should be noted that the General Counsel’s report is not law but, instead, represents the current enforcement policy of the NLRB.  However, given the NLRB’s recent aggressive position relative to enforcing Section 7 rights in non-union workplaces, employers should review their handbooks to determine if any of their rules or policies may run afoul of the NLRB’s current set of enforcement policies concerning employee handbooks.

Although we previously posted an article outlining that the mid-term elections could improve the landscape for employers regarding administrative agency enforcement, including the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), employers may still see a significant pro-union push from the NLRB before the end of 2014.

Democratic-appointee Nancy Schiffer’s term on the NLRB ends December 16, 2014. The Obama Administration has nominated Senate Health Education and Pensions Committee chief labor counsel Lauren McFerran to take Schiffer’s place on the five-member board. However, the now Republican-controlled Senate must approve all NLRB nominations. If the Senate does not confirm McFerran, or any other proposed nominee, the NLRB could be locked in a 2-2 partisan stalemate. Therefore, many believe that the currently Democratic NLRB will try to get major changes pushed through while they are still in the majority. This could include changes to union election procedures and changes to the definition of joint-employer status.

The NLRB has proposed rule changes that would significantly change the union election process. If issued, they would shorten the period between filing of an election petition and the election itself to only seven days. If this happens, employers will have less time to inform workers of the pros and cons of unionizing. Among other changes, the new rules would also require employers to submit a “statement of position” on the election petition by the time the pre-election hearing is held and waive any issues not raised in the statement.

Also, the NLRB could expand the standard for determining joint employer status in the Browning-Ferris case. A decision from the Board on this important topic is expected soon. For the past thirty years, the NLRB has analyzed whether two or more companies are joint employers under a “degree of control” test. The Board, in its expected decision in Browning-Ferris, could change that standard to a “totality of the circumstances” standard. A broader standard from the Board in finding joint employer liability would be expected given the NLRB’s General Counsel recent decision to permit 43 unfair labor practice charges against McDonald’s, USA, LLC to move forward under a “joint employer” theory finding that McDonald’s should be held liable, along with its independently-owned franchisees, based upon allegations that the franchisees violated workers’ rights in responding to workplace protests. If the NLRB expands the definition of “joint employer,” as expected, more companies that do not use direct employees could potentially face unfair labor practice charges for the conduct of other companies or could even be required to recognize and bargain with unions.

Employers should monitor the NLRB’s decisions and actions through the end of the year and look for rulings that could impact them and their employees.

In a move that could significantly increase the risk associated with unfair labor practice litigation for employers, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision on October 24, 2014 that stated it has authority to order expanded remedies for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) that are “egregious and pervasive.”

In HTH Corporation, 361 NLRB No. 65 (2014), the NLRB recognized violations by a Hawaii hotel chain for repeated violations of the NLRA, including unlawfully terminating an employee for engaging in protected activity, eliminating contributions to unionized employees’ retirement plans, maintaining an unlawful anti-solicitation policy, bargaining in bad faith, and failing to comply with NLRB orders.

The NLRB ordered, among various other remedies, the employer to reimburse both the NLRB General Counsel and the union for several years of litigation expenses, including counsel fees, salaries, witness fees, transcript and record costs, printing costs, travel expenses, per diems, and other reasonable expenses. In addition to expenses, the employer must comply with increased posting requirements. Typically, employers who are found in violation of the NLRA must post, for 60 days, a notice informing employees of their rights under the NLRA and a statement that the employer will not violate those rights. In HTH, because of the egregious and pervasive conduct, the NLRB required the employer to post the standard notice and an Explanation of Rights, outlining employees’ core rights under the NLRA and giving specific examples of violations, for three years. In addition, the company will be required to give all new hires in that three year period copies of the notice and the Explanation of Rights. The NLRB is also requiring the company to publish the notice and the Explanation of Rights in two local publications twice a week for eight weeks.

And, although the NLRB did not exercise its right to do so in this particular case, it did note that front pay is an available remedy under the NLRA as part of a make-whole remedy. Front pay is money awarded for lost compensation during the period between judgment and reinstatement or in lieu of reinstatement. The NLRB did not specify how front pay would be calculated in the event that reinstatement was not awarded and left that question for a later decision.

This decision underscores the NLRB’s recent aggressive enforcement agenda and the NLRB’s willingness to deal the unions a winning hand in unfair labor litigation. The NLRB is active in enforcing the NLRA and will continue to use its broad discretionary powers to do so. This decision is likely to increase unfair labor practice charges being filed, as now unions have additional incentive to pursue such claims because they can recover their costs, and employers will be pressured to settle such charges to avoid the risk of liability for the union’s costs and fees.

In a decision that could have far reaching implications for industries that rely on the franchisor/franchisee business model, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, Jr., determined that 43 unfair labor practices charges against McDonald’s, USA, LLC may move forward under a “joint employer” theory finding that McDonald’s should be held liable along with its independently owned franchisees based upon allegations that the franchisees violated worker’s rights in responding to workplace protests. The NLRB General Counsel’s decision to move forward against McDonald’s not only attempts to extend liability under the National Labor Relations Act to franchisors for acts of its franchisees, but it may also open the door for unions to more easily organize multiple independently owned franchise locations operating under agreement with a single franchisor.

The “joint employer” theory is a legal concept that treats two allegedly separate employers as one. The “joint employer” theory does not depend upon the existence of a single integrated enterprise, but, rather, assumes in the first instance that companies are “what they appear to be” – independent legal entities that have merely chosen to handle jointly… important aspects of their employer-employee relationship. Typically, a joint employer relationship is found between two companies where the non-employing company actively and significantly exerts control over the same employees on those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervisions, and direction.

The NLRB General Counsel’s decision to target McDonald’s as a joint employer comes in unison with big labor’s recent efforts to protest wage and benefits levels for fast food workers. These recent protests over wages and benefits is big labor’s attempt to attack the franchisor/franchisee business model by deeming independently owned stores to have the deep pockets of its franchisors – ignoring the economic realities of the franchisor/franchisee business model. For example, the SEIU has staged protests at different fast food establishments across the country demanding wages as high as $15/hour for all fast food workers based upon the fallacy that that such wages are appropriate given the corporate franchisor’s finances. Wage demands of this type ignores the economics of operating an independent and locally-owned franchise where wages and benefits are often set based upon local market conditions as well as a franchisee’s own profit and loss rather than upon the finances of its franchisor.

The NLRB General Counsel’s decision to move forward with complaints that attempts to now treat McDonald’s as a joint employer with its franchisees provides ammunition to big labor to further its war over wages and benefits against fast food franchisees by blurring the line between a small independently and locally-operated franchisee and its affiliated large corporate franchisor. In addition, with the NLRB willing to make clear that a corporate franchisor can now be held liable for unfair labor practices as a joint employer with its franchisees, it is only logical that the NLRB’s next step will be to permit unions to organize fast food establishments based upon petitioned collective bargaining units that consist of multiple franchisee locations of a single franchisor even though the locations are independently owned and operated by different independent owners.

The NLRB General Counsel’s decision to treat McDonald’s as a joint employer does not currently have the effect of law. Once the NLRB issues the complaints, these cases will have to proceed through the adjudicative process leading up to a hearing before an administrative law judge before the cases might reach the full National Labor Relations Board for a decision.

Given the political make-up of current NLRB members, political ideologies will definitely pave the way for the NLRB’s General Counsel’s viewpoint on joint employer liability to prevail against McDonald’s before the NLRB despite three decades of legal precedent that would hold otherwise. Needless to say, the battle will not end at the NLRB, as it would be expected that this issue will most likely wind-up before the U.S. Supreme Court who will make the ultimate decision on this important issue.

At this point, the NLRB will try to achieve settlement with McDonald’s before proceeding to hearing with these cases. It would be expected that McDonald’s will oppose any attempts to settle these cases and try to move these cases beyond the NLRB and into the courts where strong legal precedent has mostly rejected the joint employer theory for businesses set up under the franchisor/franchisee business model. It is in the federal court system where McDonald’s has the best opportunity to defeat the NLRB’s new approach against the fast food and other industries that rely on the franchisor/franchisee business model.

We will keep you informed of these cases before the NLRB as they develop.