D.C. Circuit Court Strikes down NLRB Posting Rule

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) had previously passed a rule that employers who were subject to its jurisdiction were required to post on their properties and websites a “Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act.” The posting basically advises employees of their rights to:  More ›

NLRB Permits Unions to Charge dues Objectors for Lobbying Expenses, and Seeks Further Briefing on “Germaneness” Standard

A former Union member filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Union, which represents hospital employees, violated the National Labor Relations Act by its treatment of the former Union member and other employees who resigned their Union memberships and objected to paying dues that were unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. More ›

Hospital’s Challenge to NLRB Health care rule Denied

A hospital challenged the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) certification of the union as the representative of a "wall to wall" bargaining unit of the hospital's professional and non-professional employees. The hospital claimed that the Health Care Rule (which limited the number and type of bargaining units allowed in an acute care setting) violated the National Labor Relations Act, Section 9(c)(5) because it endorsed the extent of a union's organization as the controlling factor in determining bargaining units. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, rejected this argument, as well as the hospital's argument that the NLRB violated the Rule because the union was required to show, and the Board was required to find, extraordinary circumstances to join together a number of the Rule's designated units. The Court of Appeals, however, found that such a showing was not required under the Rule. More ›

NLRB: Employer’s Overbroad Social Media Policy Violates Employees’ Rights

In its first decision involving an employer’s social media policy, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) found that an employer's policy violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The Board reasoned that the policy was written in overly general terms and therefore had “a reasonable tendency to inhibit employees’ protected activity.” This decision follows a series of social media reports issued by the Board over the past year, and appears to confirm what many employers had feared based upon those reports: the Board appears ready to reject all broad prohibitions on what employees may say online. More ›

NLRB: Hospital’s Practice of Asking Employees not to Discuss Ongoing Investigations of Misconduct Interfered with Employees’ Rights

The National Labor Relations Board has ordered an Arizona hospital to end its practice of asking employees not to discuss alleged employee misconduct with co-workers while the hospital is investigating the alleged misconduct. With one member dissenting, the Board made clear that it will allow an employer to limit employees’ discussion of an ongoing disciplinary investigation only if a unique justification arises during the investigation. More ›

New Report Issued on Employee use of Social Media and the National Labor Relations Act

On May 30, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel issued a Report Concerning Social Media Cases. In it, the General Counsel’s Office reviewed seven cases concerning employers’ social media policies regarding. In its review, the General Counsel found several aspects of these policies to be overbroad while affirming others. More ›

Federal Judge Strikes Down NLRB “Speedy Election” Rule on Technicality

A federal district court in Washington D.C. has struck down the recently enacted National Labor Relations Board rule that expedited union representation elections. The rule, which had been in effect since April 30, sped up union elections from an average of 38 days after a petition is filed to as few as 10 days. In a May 14 decision in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. National Labor Relations Board, however, District Court Judge James Boasberg found that the Board was acting without a quorum when two of its members enacted the rule in December 2011. As a result, Judge Boasberg determined, the so-called "speedy election" rule is invalid. More ›

South Carolina Court Strikes down NLRB Posting Rule

Up until December, 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), unlike most federal labor agencies, did not require employers to post a general notice of employee rights in the workplace. That changed, however, upon issuance of a proposed rule wherein all employees subject to the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) would be required to post notices which informed employees of their rights under the NLRA. The final rule was ultimately published in August, 2011, and the requirements were set to take effect on April 30, 2012. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce sought an injunction to prevent the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina agreed with the Chambers, finding that the Board, in promulgating the final rule, exceeded its authority in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. You can read the decision here.   More ›

NLRB Finds Arbitration Provision Violative of NLRA

D.R. Horton, a homebuilder with operations in more than 20 states, began to require each new and current employee to execute a "Mutual Arbitration Agreement" (MAA) as a condition of employment, requiring arbitration of all claims on a individual basis, precluding them from filing joint, class or collective claims addressing their wages, hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum.  More ›

State Claims for Wrongful Discharge Related to Facebook post not Preempted by Federal Law

A nurse posted complaints about high patient-to-nurse ratios at the hospital where she worked on her Facebook page, and asserted that the high ratio negatively impacted patient safety. The nurse was subsequently warned that she should think about her behavior because her actions—whether at work or at home — reflected on the hospital. Fearing termination, the nurse deleted the Facebook page. Five months later, the nurse was terminated for substandard customer service. She sued the employer in Kentucky state court, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free-speech rights under the Kentucky Constitution. The hospital sought to remove the lawsuit to federal court on the basis that the nurse’s complaint involved claims for violations of federal law, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and that those federal laws preempted her complaint. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky found that the nurse’s claim was firmly rooted in Kentucky state law and that neither the NLRA nor the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the claim. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the state court. Employers should be mindful that an employee’s public complaints about working conditions on social media networks may be protected by various state law protections that vary depending on the state of employment, which could in turn support a claim for wrongful discharge. Consequently, it is important to fully evaluate not only applicable federal laws when making an adverse employment decision, but also applicable state and local laws that may offer additional protections to an employee.

Moore v. Highlands Hosp. Corp., No. 7:11-cv-131 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 17, 2011)