Recent Blog Posts
- NLRB Announces Plans for Further Rulemaking: Election Rules, Union Access to Employer Property, Question of Whether Student Athletes on Scholarship Are Employees, and More The rulemaking priorities of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) have been released, signaling what Board Chairman John F. Ring described as “the Board majority’s strong interest in continued rulemaking.” The announcement was contained in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, published by the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Issues Identified by the Board for Further Rulemaking
The Board majority has identified the following as areas in which it intends... More
- NLRB General Counsel Concludes That Drivers Using the Uber App Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees The Division of Advice of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), in an Advice Memorandum, dated April 16, 2019 (“Advice Memo”), has concluded that “drivers providing personal transportation services” using Uber Technologies Inc.’s “app-based ride-share platforms” were independent contractors and not employees, as the drivers had alleged in a series of unfair labor practice charges filed in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Based on the Division of Advice’s analysis of the relationship between Uber and the drivers, the General... More
- DOL Endorses Independent Contractor Status in the Gig Economy On April 29, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter concluding that workers providing services to customers referred to them through an unidentified virtual marketplace are properly classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Although the opinion letter is not “binding” authority, the DOL’s guidance should provide support to gig economy businesses defending against claims of independent contractor misclassification under the FLSA. The opinion letter may also be of value to businesses facing... More
- DOL Joins NLRB in Proposing a New Rule to Determine Joint Employer Status – DOL Rule Would Apply to FLSA My colleagues Adriana S. Kosovych, Jeffrey H. Ruzal, and I have posted on Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.’s Hospitality Labor and Employment Law blog concerning the U.S. Department of Labor’s Proposed New Rule to Determine Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In its proposed new rule, the DOL notes that the National Labor Relations Board is also engaged in rulemaking to set new standards for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Our blog... More
- NLRB Replaces Its Test for Distinguishing Between Employees and Independent Contractors – Returns to Pre-2014 Common Law Based Test In a three to one decision issued on January 25, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) in SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No.75 (2019), the Board announced it was rejecting the test adopted in 2014 in FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB 610 (2014) for determining whether a worker was an employee or an independent contractor and returning to the test it used prior to the FedEx Home decision.
As the decision in SuperShuttle makes clear, the determination... More
- NLRB Proposed Rule Will Redefine Joint-Employer Status –Rule Will Overrule Browning-Ferris and Require “Direct and Immediate Control” The National Labor Relations Board has announced publication of a proposed rule that will establish a new and far narrower standard for determining whether an employer can be held to be the joint-employer of another employer’s employees. The rule described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2018, will, once effective essentially discard the Board’s test adopted in Browning-Ferris Industries (“Browning-Ferris”) during the Obama Administration, which substantially reduced the burden to establish that separate employers... More
- NLRB Implements Changes to Case Processing – Announces Early Retirement and Voluntary Separation Programs for Professional Staff Since earlier this year, reports have circulated that National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) General Counsel Peter Robb planned to introduce changes in its case handling processes and organizational structure that would move certain authority away from the Regional Directors and transfer substantive decision making authority to Washington. While the General Counsel denied the specifics, he acknowledged that as the Board was faced with a reduced case load and budgetary pressures, some changes would be necessary and appropriate. It now... More
- New York City Temporary Schedule Change Law Impact Employers with Collective Bargaining Agreements – Express Waiver and “Comparable Benefits” Language Will Need To Be Negotiated For Contracts Covering Persons Employed In New York City The New York City Temporary Schedule Change Law (“Law”), which became effective on July 18, 2018, raises new issues that employers with union represented employees will need to address as their existing collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) come up for renewal.
The Law allows most New York City employees up to two temporary schedule changes (or permission to take unpaid time off) per calendar year when such changes are needed due to a “personal event.” The Law also prohibits retaliation against workers... More
- DOL Rescinds 2016 Persuader Rule – Returns to Long Standing Definition of “Advice Exemption” One of the more controversial actions of the United States Department of Labor during the Obama Administration was its 2016 issuance of a Final Rule that was intended to radically rewrite the rules concerning the “Advice Exemption” to Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”). The 2016 Final Rule was hotly contested because it would have required employers and their labor law counsel to report concerning advice the lawyers provided even when the lawyers did not directly communicate with... More
- Supreme Court Holds Requiring Public Sector Employees to Pay Representation Fees Is Unconstitutional – Violates Government Employees’ First Amendment Rights In its long awaited decision in Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United States Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally held that it is a violation of public employees’ First Amendment rights to require that they pay an “agency fee” to the union that is their collective bargaining representative, to cover their “fair share” of their union representative’s bargaining and contract enforcement expenses. The Janus decision overturns the Court’s own 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit... More