Much speculation abounds regarding why workers at the Volkswagen (VW) plant in Chattanooga rejected the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) in a recent vote. Factors appeared to be aligning in favor of the UAW, such as
Continue Reading VW Aftermath – Factors Still Favor Non-Union South
A group of football players at Northwestern University has teamed with the United Steelworkers Union and formed a labor union, the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). What’s more, the players have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), at its regional office in Chicago, to have CAPA recognized as the players’ exclusive bargaining representative in negotiations with the players’ “employer.”
Continue Reading College Football and Labor Law? Let the Debate Begin
Some employers use last chance agreements (“LCA”), particularly in union settings, to allow hourly employees “one last chance” to improve performance. In return, the employee waives the right to use the union’s grievance and arbitration process if later termination is due to continued failure to improve performance or due to another policy violation. Employers will explain that the employee otherwise would be terminated, but can remain employed in return for signing this “one last chance” agreement; if the employee fails to sign the LCA, the employee will be terminated for the underlying violation which led the employer to offer the LCA.
Some employers also require employees to release statutory civil rights in an LCA. As an employer recently learned, this practice is hazardous and can lead to significant liability.Continue Reading Last Chance Agreements – Asking for Waiver of Discrimination Claims Perilous
The National Labor Relations Board’s recent attempt to change its union election rules has been halted by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. The Court ruled that the attempted changes were not valid because the vote to approve the rules occurred when the Board did not have a quorum (Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, D.D.C., No. 11-cv-2262, 5/14/12).
Interestingly, the decision hinged on what is sufficient “participation” in an electronic vote to satisfy quorum requirements. Board member Brian E. Hayes did not vote or take any action in the December 16, 2011 electronic vote. Is that like being present but abstaining, and thus counting toward a quorum? No, said the Court. Hayes was only sent the notification calling for a vote; he did not vote or even abstain. His silence was as if he was not in attendance at an in-person meeting, and thus, no quorum was present for the election rules to have been properly adopted.Continue Reading Federal Court Halts Board’s Changes in Election Rules