On May 29, 2018, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernard Sanders, and Kirsten Gillibrand sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman expressing their concerns about the Agency’s announcement on joint-employer rulemaking.

Chairman John F. Ring responded in a 3-page letter this week, denouncing their accusations of prejudgment. Of note is his announcement regarding NLRB rulemaking,  in which he states, “the NLRB is no longer merely considering jointemployer rulemaking. A majority of the Board is committed to engage in rulemaking, and the NLRB will do so. Internal preparations are underway, and we are working toward issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as soon as possible.”

Furthermore, he clarifies that “rulemaking on this topic opens an avenue of communication with the Board for — we hope — thousands of commenters. I look forward to hearing from all interested parties, including individuals and small businesses that may not be able to afford to hire a law firm to write a brief for them, yet have valuable insight to share from hard-won experience.”

You can find the full letter here and the announcement from the NLRB about his response here.

The Supreme Court issued a decision today on NLRB vs Murphy Oil USA that establishes arbitration agreements which provide for individualized proceedings as lawful and enforceable and allows employers to maintain such class-action waiver agreements.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has 55 pending cases regarding employers who maintain or enforce individual arbitration agreements or policies containing class- and collective-action waivers. The NLRB will be resolving those cases now that the Supreme Court’s decision has been made. Additionally, many similar cases are pending before the federal courts of appeals.

Read the full press release here.

Where do our rights to free speech start and end? Specifically, where does free speech at work start and end? If one particular bill was to become law in Connecticut, the answer to that question would become much more difficult.

There is a bill before the General Assembly that would restrict employers’ speech rights. It also runs afoul of federal labor law.

HB 5473, “An Act Concerning Captive Audience Meetings,” would ban employers from being able to effectively communicate with their employees on “political activity.” Hidden in the definition of “political activity” is discussions about unionization.

This is an end run to squelch employers from educating their employees on what it means to be in a union and how collective bargaining really works. The bill attempts to ensure that the unsuspecting employees only have one side of the story. Keep in mind also that this subject matter area is almost exclusively governed by federal law, not state law.

In fact, according to State Attorney General George Jepsen, the unionization language would likely be preempted by the federal government.

Labor law is obscure, dense, and difficult to navigate, even for the savviest individuals. Because it governs their very existence, unions are experts in labor law. Without allowing employers to share their perspective, the workforce will not have all the information they need to decide whether to unionize. The employees hear campaign promises from the unions, meanwhile the business is unable to provide more context, and instead gets surprised with an election petition.

This is where free speech comes in: after a petition is filed, the NLRB will set an election date. On average, the NLRB elections take place within 24 days from the time the petition was filed. This is presumably when the employer will educate employees of what being in a union will mean for the company and the workforce. Given the complex nature of labor law, the business often must find legal counsel or consultants just to educate everyone involved.

Keep in mind this is not some political rally employees are asked to attend. Unionization is a major decision that would impact core functions of a business — a decision which business leaders are not making. The decision to force a business to bargain with a third party belongs to the employee, done via an NLRB election. Business leaders understand this. However, given the major impact unionization has on the core of a business’ activities, they deserve the right to ensure that employees have the knowledge it takes to cast an informed vote.

The bill is bad policy and quite clearly in conflict with federal labor law. Despite the attempt to use anecdotes and emotion to drive Connecticut’s public policy, the Assembly should know better. We urge the lawmakers to reject this bill and not be fooled by special interest groups to stopping free speech.

(Find my original article on CTViewpoints here.)

BREAKING NEWS: The Senate has approved two nominations this week that will make a large impact on Labor.

Patrick Pizzella was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Labor on April 12, 2018. US Senator Lamar Alexander released the following statement regarding his confirmation:

“As we learned at his confirmation hearing last July—Patrick Pizzella is well-qualified to be Deputy Secretary of Labor. America’s workers deserve a properly staffed Labor Department to help ensure workers are safe on the job and are paid the wages they’re owed as well as help ensure employers comply with our laws and regulations.”

In addition, John Ring was confirmed as a member of the National Labor Relations Board on April 11, 2018. Senator Alexander released this statement regarding his vote to confirm Mr. Ring: 

“The National Labor Relations Board is important to our nation’s workers and employers. John Ring’s varied experiences working for a labor union while attending college and law school, and then having been a management lawyer will be a strength to the board. I am glad the Senate confirmed his nomination today.”

Read the official press release on Mr. Pizzella’s confirmation here and Mr. Ring’s confirmation here.