Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Hunton & Williams partners Laura Franze and Roland Juarez recently participated in a panel of California employment law experts to discuss various cutting edge issues in labor and employment law, including the impact of social media, new trends in non-compete agreements and trade secret protections, the ripple effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, and other related topics.

The Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that an employee had standing to seek an injunction against his employer and a labor union over alleged violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) in the union organizing context.  In Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc., d.b.a. Mardi Gras Gaming, (No. 09-12683, September 10, 2010), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, overruling its decision that the employee lacked a cognizable injury, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

How would you handle the following situation?  You have recently learned that one of your employees “posted” on Facebook complaining about the company, specifically commenting on work conditions and wages.  Several other employees have made comments on this employee’s Facebook page and a discussion has ensued.  These comments and complaints are damaging to the company’s reputation and portray the company in a negative light. 

Your natural inclination may be to instruct the employee to take these comments down and prohibit him from continuing to use Facebook to discuss work issues.  Yet, unions may be looking for you to do exactly that so they can try to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  Employers have the right to protect their reputations and to prevent the possible disclosure of confidential information.  But unions may try to construe the above situation and the employer’s reaction to it as interference with an employee’s right to engage in concerted activity, a violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Notably, such an argument by unions could apply to both unionized and non-unionized employers. 

In yet another employee misclassification case, Kentucky Attorney General, Jack Conway, brought suit against FedEx Corp. alleging that FedEx violates Kentucky state law by misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors.  The Complaint contends that FedEx violated state law in regards to unemployment insurance, workers compensation, payroll taxes, and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.  The lawsuit asks the Court to order FedEx to classify its drivers as employees and to pay the contributions and penalties required by state law, which includes back pay dating to 2000 and totaling at least $10 million.

The Washington Times recently published an article by Hunton & Williams attorney Kurt Larkin regarding the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act will have on big labor's ability to infiltrate boardrooms of corporate America. To read the editorial, click here.

Pundits in the labor arena have speculated for months that the Administration’s recent appointment of union-friendly Board candidates like former SEIU Assistant General Counsel Craig Becker could have a significant impact on the state of Board precedent in future cases.  If the Board’s highly anticipated recent decision in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 355 NLRB No. 159 (“UBC”), is any indication, the pundits may be right.

In UBC, the full five-member Board -- which split along party lines -- held that a labor union’s use of stationary banners ...

Our prior posts have chronicled recent attempts by Congress and state legislatures to crack down on employers who misclassify employees as independent contractors, the most notable of which was the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act that, among other things, seeks to create a cause of action under the FLSA for misclassification and to require employers to keep records of hours worked by independent contractors.  On September 15, Congress took yet another step in the enforcement direction when Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Representative Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) introduced The Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 (S. 3786, H. 6128), which seeks to close a so-called “loophole” under the current tax regime.

Employers who thought the hotly contested issue of card check recognition had been side-lined along with EFCA should take notice of a recent decision announced by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”).  As predicted earlier in light of its new composition, the Board has begun to lay the groundwork to overturn established precedent giving employees the right to demand a secret ballot election in the face of voluntary card-based union recognition.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently decertified a wage and hour collective action against Pennsylvania poultry processor Farmers Pride, ruling that a collective action is not an appropriate mechanism for resolving claims that the employer failed to fully compensate employees for time spent engaged in donning- and doffing-related activities.  The Court’s 47-page opinion reflects a thorough analysis that will serve as guidance to employers and courts around the country faced with similar collective action claims.

Set out below is a chart that describes the various notices that are required under government regulations for the group health plan reforms and related requirements that will be in going into effect for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 (e.g., January 1, 2011 for calendar year plans) -- including the special notice requirement for those plans that intend to continue to maintain “grandfathered” status, along with a link to any model notice/language provided by the government.