The New York Times reports that Apple plans to create a $1 billion fund for the advancement of manufacturing jobs in the United States. In an interview with CNBC, Apple’s chief executive Timothy D. Cook noted, “Those manufacturing jobs create more jobs around them because you have a service industry that builds up around them.” The company hopes to announce its first investment from the new fund sometime this month.
The House Rules Committee will meet this week to discuss an amendment to the FLSA. The Working Families Flexibility Act is a Republican-sponsored bill that would create the option for employers to offer one-and-a-half hours of paid time off in lieu of one hour’s worth of time-and-a-half overtime wages. The bill recommends capping the paid time off hours available at 160. A blog post notes that the House Education and Workforce Committee approved the bill last week.
The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia reversed an NLRB decision last week in the case of Bellagio LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, finding that the Bellagio Hotel and Casino did not interfere with a bellhop’s “Weingarten rights” under the NLRA. Weingarten rights assert that employees have the right under the NLRA to have union representation during any investigatory interviews. This right must be affirmatively requested by the employee, after which an employer may (1) grant the request, (2) end the interview, or (3) offer the employee the option between holding an interview without representation or not having an interview.
Following a complaint from a hotel guest about the bellhop, Bellagio management attempted to interview the bellhop, Gabor Garner, who requested union representation. Bellagio suggest Garner contact a union representative on his own, but he refused. The hotel then attempted to find a representative, but was unsuccessful. Upon returning to the interview room where Garner was waiting, management asked Garner if he would like to make a written statement instead, which he also refused. Management then ceased the interview and placed Garner on paid suspension pending investigation until Garner returned the following day with his union representative to conduct the interview. Continue reading
The Supreme Court will soon be presented with the opportunity to decide whether unions can constitutionally charge non-members “fair share” fees. According to Bloomberg BNA, “the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation intends by the end of May to file a petition asking the high court to review a Seventh Circuit decision dismissing a lawsuit by two Illinois government workers who challenged the fees on First Amendment grounds.” The Supreme Court heard a similar challenge in 2016, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, but ultimately ruled 4-4 following the death of Justice Scalia, thus affirming a lower court decision finding that public-sector unions may continue to collect “fair share” fees from nonmembers. The Seventh Circuit similarly upheld such fees in the case at issue now.
Using colorful language about a boss does not deprive a worker of the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, according to the Second Circuit. Consumerist reports that the Second Circuit found that the operator of restaurants at New York’s Chelsea Piers illegally terminated a worker in retaliation for engaging in protected activity when, two days before a unionization vote, the worker posted a colorful Facebook post about his boss in urging support for unionization. The Second Circuit concluded that “the NLRB could reasonably determine that the server’s “outburst was not an idiosyncratic reaction to a manager’s request but part of a tense debate over managerial mistreatment in the period before the representation election.”
America’s male-dominated industries want to diversity. Per the Chicago Tribune, the “Iron Workers union this month leaped to the cutting edge of the effort, becoming the first building trades union to offer up to eight months of paid maternity leave to pregnant women and new moms” despite only 2 percent of union members being women. The union and other traditionally male-dominated employers are driven to recruit women by the aging of baby boomers, a decline in enrollment in vocational education, and other factors.
Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) stood in solidarity with rallying crowd of women for International Women’s Day. According to Politico, labor unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and National Nurses United were in attendance. Rep. Schakowsky addressed the protestors, stating, “American women still earn far less than men 50 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act.”
The Huffington Post reports that the number of deportations of undocumented workers under the Trump administration, alongside the regime’s immigration policies, begs the question of how reporting standards in immigrant labor will shift. Chicago attorney Christopher Williams, who specializes in immigrant wage theft cases, notes, “There’s a lot of fear out there, and it’s driving workers further underground. I honestly think it’s creating an incentive to hire more undocumented workers, because now they’re even more vulnerable to being exploited.” So far, the Labor Department has not issued a press release detailing wage and safety investigations since Trump’s presidency commenced.
Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit has issued its opinion in Scoma’s of Sausalito. Scoma’s involved an employer’s withdrawal of recognition of UNITE HERE Local 2850 based on the employer’s belief that the union no longer enjoyed majority support of the bargaining unit. The Board held that the withdrawal was illegal and issued a bargaining order. The D.C. Circuit agreed that withdrawing recognition was an unfair labor practice, but refused to enforce the Board’s bargaining order remedy. Instead, the court of appeals sent the case back to the Board and ordered the Board to come up with a less “extraordinary” remedy for the illegal withdrawal of recognition.
In other NLRB news, the Board has ordered a Regional Director to revisit its decision that NBCUniversal workers in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles were part of a single nationwide bargaining unit.
We still have a lot to learn about Alex Acosta, Donald Trump’s new nominee for Labor Secretary, but one case he ruled on during his brief stint at the National Labor Relations Board suggests that, not surprisingly for a Trump appointee, he is likely to favor employers over workers when faced with a close question. In Alexandria Clinic, P.A., a 2003 case, Acosta, joined by two other Republican Board members, overruled a twenty-four year old precedent to uphold the firings of 22 licensed practical nurses who were fired for striking at the health care clinic where they worked.
The National Labor Relations Act provides that unions must give health care institutions at least ten days’ notice before striking, and the notice must state “the date and time” the strike will commence. The Act further provides that an employee loses her status as an employee if she strikes “within” the notice period. In this case, the union provided ten days’ notice of its intent to strike on September 10 at 8 a.m. After the notice went out, the nurses decided that it would be less disruptive for patients if they struck at 11:45 a.m., instead of 8 a.m., and so they decided to begin their strike at 11:45. The employer was well-prepared to weather the strike, as it had temporary nurses standing by to replace the nurses as soon as they went out. There was no finding that any patient was harmed as a result of the strike.
On January 28, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance called an hour-long work stoppage as a way to express their opposition to President Trump’s Executive Order banning immigration from seven Muslim majority countries and suspending refugee intake. A week later, Yemeni-American bodega owners in New York City protested the Order by closing their businesses and holding a thousands-strong protest in Brooklyn. On February 16, as part of an action called A Day Without Immigrants, thousands went on strike to highlight the contributions of immigrant workers. Each of these demonstrations employed the tactic of work stoppages to send a message. Each was labeled a “strike” in the media. But unlike traditional workplace strikes, the protesters’ messages were not targeted exclusively or even primarily at their employers.
Similar “political strikes” might become more common in the era of President Trump. The organizers of the Women’s March on Washington have joined in the call for “A Day Without a Woman” on March 8 – International Women’s Day – in solidarity with an International Women’s Strike. If women respond in large numbers as they did to the march, the Day could mark the largest political strike in this country’s history.
Such actions are not without risks. At least one hundred workers were fired for participating in the Day Without Immigrants. Ten years ago, the first Day Without Immigrants strike was held to protest legislation that increased barriers to hiring immigrant workers. Then, too, many strikers were fired or faced other forms of retaliation.
So, what can be learned from the Day(s) Without Immigrants to minimize risks for those who choose to take part in A Day Without a Woman?
A guidance letter issued by the National Labor Relations Board following the 2006 Day Without Immigrants provides some instruction. The letter suggested that the Board will consider two factors when determining whether workers are shielded from retaliation for participating in political advocacy: the workers’ objectives and the means employed.
Charlie J. Morris is Professor Emeritus at the Dedman School of Law, Southern Methodist University.
This is a piece whose unlikely outcome is based on wishful thinking. It’s what I want to believe, not what I really believe. But whether I’m right or wrong, the information that follows should prove useful for general understanding of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) and its policy, and perhaps someday for improving the functioning of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board).
As a result of the Presidential election, there is one evidentiary fact on which there’s wide agreement, which is that an unacceptable level of economic inequality exists in America. Inasmuch as Donald Trump made a major campaign promise to “rebuild our economy for working people,” he now faces the prospect of having to seriously address that condition. Although this is one of the few areas in which Democrats may find common ground with his administration, there will obviously be substantial disagreements as to what steps should be taken to move toward the common objective of bettering the lot of the American middle class. And further complicating those limited areas of agreement are the areas where the Trump campaign is, or will be, at odds with conventional views of the Republican establishment—especially the Republican Congress. The extent to which the Trump administration will be willing to pursue objectives that differ from traditional Republican positions is mostly unknown. For example, If one assumes the possibility of President Trump prevailing in intra-party disagreements concerning matters involving labor-relations—which is pure wishful thinking—a fundamental question arises as to whether he might actually oppose some of the extreme anti-union positions that have long been hallmarks of the Republican establishment and perhaps even initiate some reasonable actions that favor both organized labor and the economy as a whole.
At first blush such occurrences seem unlikely—if not impossible—but Trump’s public statements and his extensive labor-relations record have created an area of mystery that makes this unlikely possibility worth examining. As we all know, Trump changes his positions readily and is full of surprises. A potential subject for one such unlikely surprise has crossed my mind. But before examining that subject, we should first look at its likely setting and at Trump’s known record as an active participant in union-management relations, all of which can be contrasted and compared with his public statements.