Employers, especially in the context of workforce reductions, may provide departing employees with severance agreements in exchange for a release. Those agreements often include non-disparagement clauses and confidentiality clauses regarding the terms and the amount of the agreement. On February 21, 2023, in McLaren Macomb, the National Labor Relations Board held that such clauses infringe on employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Importantly, McLaren applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces alike.
With the upward trend in commercial bankruptcy filings likely to continue, what happens to collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy?
In this Law360 article, McDermott’s Stephania C. Sanon outlines the options that debtor employers have during this challenging legal process.
Employers grappling with independent-contractor classification had a busy 2020—and should expect a flurry of additional activity this year. Few areas in employment law are changing as rapidly. Last year, many concerned about the future of contractor-classification laws paid careful attention to California and AB 5, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, and codified the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles.
In a recent article for Law360, McDermott partners Ellen Bronchetti and Ron Holland consider the impacts of the California law on the gig economy, employer classification tests and organized labor in the United States.
Employers are contending with how to respond to telecommuters dressing down during the pandemic. Companies also are considering how to ensure dress codes don’t unlawfully discriminate or violate National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) rights.
In a recent article by the Society of Human Resource Management, McDermott Employment associate Philip Shecter advises employers to be mindful of these rights, which may arise in the context of attire in favor of social justice movements.
Some essential workers are refusing to go to work out of fear of contracting COVID-19. Their employers must weigh the employees’ legal rights and understandable health concerns with the organizations’ business needs. It can be a tough balancing act.
In a recent article, McDermott Partner Pankit Doshi said employers may relax documentation requirements due to the difficulty some employees could have obtaining access to medical providers during the pandemic and to encourage ill employees to stay away from work.
In two opinions—one published and one unpublished—the Ninth Circuit overturned prior precedent and held that a Plan amendment requiring arbitration meant that an individual had to arbitrate, on an individual basis, purported class claims alleging imprudent and disloyal management of 401(k) investments. This decision, although unpublished, provides support for plans wishing to add binding arbitration provisions that apply to ERISA 502(a)(2) claims.
by Stephen D. Erf, Heather Egan Sussman and Sabrina E. Dunlap
Two weeks ago, we wrote about a decision from an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (available here) finding that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protected an employee’s Facebook comments made about his employer. Last week, an ALJ issued another decision involving social media and the NLRA, finding that an employee had engaged in some protected activity, but that he was ultimately fired for other, unprotected activity. In Karl Knauz Motors, a former salesperson claimed that he was fired after he posted pictures and comments on Facebook criticizing his employer’s choice of serving hot dogs at a sales event introducing the new BMW 5-series. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a report related to social media (found here), in which it noted the employee’s posts in the BMW case were protected activity because they related to the terms and conditions of employment.
While the ALJ agreed that the employee had engaged in protected activity in discussing the sales event, the Judge held that the employer actually terminated the employee for his other Facebook posts, which mocked a co-worker for allowing a teenager to test drive a Land Rover, who ultimately drove the car into a nearby pond. The Judge found that the NLRA did not protect such a posting because it had no connection to the terms and conditions of employment, and was posted solely by the employee, not as part of a discussion with other employees. Therefore the employer did not violate the NLRA when it fired the employee.
In addition to the Facebook postings, the Judge also considered whether four provisions of the employer’s handbook violated Section 7 of the NLRA. The Judge dismissed the complaint regarding a provision that encouraged employees to have a good attitude at work, because it could be read to protect the relationship between the dealer and its customers, rather than to restrict employees’ Section 7 rights. However, the Judge held that the three remaining provisions, which each limited employees’ right to speak about employment, violated the NLRA because they all could be read as curtailing employees’ Section 7 rights, and if employees complied with these restrictions, they would not be able to discuss working conditions with union representatives or lawyers.
Based on this ALJ decision, employers should continue to exercise caution when making employment decisions based on social media comments. There continues to be a fine line between protected activity and unprotected activity when it comes to employees’ social media comments about their employers. In addition, employers should review and possibly revise their handbooks to ensure they cannot be read as restricting employees’ Section 7 rights.
by Heather Egan Sussman, Sabrina E. Dunlap and Stephen D. Erf
As an update to our previous blog entry, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has released the private employer notice of rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As of November 14, 2011, covered employers must post the 11-by-17-inch notice in a conspicuous place, where other notifications of workplace rights and employer rules and policies are posted. The NLRB states that employers also should publish the notice on an internal or external website if other personnel policies or workplace notices are posted there.
The NLRB has also posted Frequently Asked Questions on the posting requirement, which covers topics such as when employers are covered by the NLRA, and what to do if a substantial share of the workplace speaks a language other than English.
Subscribe
