For organized labor, Christmas has come early. Unfortunately, Americas’ employers received a lump of a coal
Late last week, President Obama’s National Labor Relation’s Board finalized the so-called “ambush election rules”—a gift that was at the top of every union’s wish list. By speeding up the timeframe for representation elections, this new regulation will significantly handicap employers’ ability to contest union organizing drives.
As Siegel O’Connor has previously noted, the average time between when a union files a representation petition—the first step in organizing a workplace into a union—is 38 days, but this new rule would reduce that to as few as 10 days. Consequently, unions could launch guerrilla-organizing campaigns that, because of the compressed timeline, deny management its legal right to discuss with their employees whether a union has anything worthwhile or constructive to offer them or the company.
Employers across the country have strongly criticized the change. For instance, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) issued the following statement:
This flawed rule is harmful to both workers and employers. By dramatically changing the procedures that govern union elections, the rule limits the information available to employees prior to entering the voting booth, potentially subjects employees to harassment at home and undermines the due process rights of employers.
Bottom Line for Employers
Fortunately for America’s employers, these new regulations don’t go into effect until April 2015; additional legal and legislative challenges are likely. In the interim, however, Employers should contact their respective members of Congress and demand an end to the Obama NLRB’s hyper-partisan antics. Employers are also urged to contact their labor counsel and begin developing a strategy for contesting ambush elections.Read More
The Connecticut Appellate confirmed today that continued employment alone will not bind an existing employee to an adverse change in contract terms.
In Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., Conn. App. Ct., No. AC 35313, official release 9/23/14, the Court found that a terminated executive was entitled to benefits of her original employment agreement, despite having the executive having signed a second employment agreement negating said benefits.
Specifically, the Oxford executive signed a first employment agreement with provisions including severance pay in the case of termination without cause and received at increase in salary. Some time after, Oxford decided that the benefits in the first agreement were too generous and revised the agreement. Both parties signed the second agreement, which excluded any severance benefits and did not provide any further increase in salary. As provided in the first agreement, the executive’s salary increased. When Oxford terminated the executive over a year later and failed to pay her severance, she sued Oxford.
Ultimately, the Court’s decision should not come as a huge surprise to Connecticut employers. For some time, Connecticut courts have leaned toward requiring some form of additional consideration to bind existing employees to any adverse change in their terms or conditions of employment. Employers should know that if they want to incorporate a non-compete agreement or a mandatory arbitration clause, these significant restrictions on employees must be done in connection with hiring or some incentive other than continued employment to be binding and enforceable.Read More
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court held that personal care assistants who are paid by the state of Illinois—but mostly supervised by the homecare recipients they serve—are not “full-fledged” public employees. As a result, these employees cannot be forced to pay union dues or fees.
In a 5-4 decision, the majority ruled that requiring personal care assistants to pay union dues would violate the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.
The Court noted that these assistants are “different from full-fledged public employees,” because they work primarily for their disabled client, and do not receive the same benefits as regular state employees.
This decision deals a considerable blow to organized labor. Unions are losing members—and, in turn, the dues and fees provided by said members—at an astonishing rate. Had the court ruled in their favor, public-sector unions would have had access to 26,000 new members—and their wallets. And given that nine other states, including Connecticut, allow personal care assistants to join unions, the impact will be felt far beyond Illinois.
In making its decision, the court refused to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 Supreme Court cases that requires “full-fledged” public employees to pay dues, even if they are not members of the union. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted that:
Abood itself has clear boundaries; it applies to public employees. Extending those boundaries to encompass partial-public employees, quasi-public employees, or simply private employees would invite problems…If we allowed Abood to be extended to those who are not full-fledged public employees, it would be hard to see just where to draw the line, and we therefore confine Abood’s reach to full-fledged state employees.
However, labor unions will likely emphasize that the ruling stressed the unique nature of the personal care assistant:
PAs are much different from public employees. Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited.
Bottom Line for Employers:
Look for this decision to trigger a battle over the definition of “full-fledged public employees,” as well as a renewed organizing push from public sector unions.Read More
Earlier this month, the Connecticut legislature wrapped up its 2014 regular session—a whirlwind few months that left employers scrambling to adjust to several new laws and regulations.
Primarily, Connecticut employers should be concerned about the legislature’s decision to increase the minimum wage. Under SB 32 (“An Act Concerning Working Families’ Wages”). Connecticut’s minimum wage will (as of January 1 of each of the next three years) increase to:
- $9.15 per hour in 2015
- $9.60 per hour in 2016
- $10.10 per hour in 2017
Furthermore, hotel, bar, and restaurant employees’ minimum wages (with the corresponding tip credit), will also change
The legislature’s decision to raise the minimum wage will negatively impact not only employers, but working-class families as well. Indeed, minimum-wage increases reduce the number of entry-level minimum-wage jobs available—actually hurting many of the workers the legislation endevors to help.
Connecticut employers should review all policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these changes to the minimum wage law.Read More