This information could come in handy for employers.
The National Labor Relations Board has made public three Advice letters dealing with the two hottest topics of our times: Political activism, and COVID-19. In each case, a Board Region Office had asked the NLRB Advice division how to handle.
Political activism: What is and isn't protected
First up is a case that involved an employee of a local of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. The employee was discharged from his* position with the UFCW (allegedly) because he was also a Maryland state legislator who was "working on police transparency and accountability legislation." The employee was a union representative for "uniformed police officers" among others.
*The public version of the NLRB letter redacts the gender of the employee. To avoid having to say "he or she" throughout this discussion, I'm going to refer to the employee as a "he." But, just so you know, "they" might be a woman.
According to the Advice letter, political activity can be protected under the National Labor Relations Act, but only "if it relates in some demonstrable way to employee concerns over wages, hours, or working conditions." In other words, there must be "a nexus between what is being advocated and employee terms and conditions of employment."
In this case, the letter said, the employee's political activity had nothing to do with his employment. (In fact, it sounds to me like there may have been a conflict of interest, given his representation of police officers and his political activity -- and that may have been the reason he was discharged.) "Instead, the evidence shows that the [employee] acted in the interest of the community at large and in furtherance of [his] own political agenda . . .."
I blogged about a similar issue a while back (scroll down to letter from "I Beg to Differ"), using the example of employees who engage in peaceful protesting against systemic racism. If the protest has to do with alleged racism in the workplace, then the protesting might be protected under the NLRA and also, maybe, Title VII. But if the employees are protesting racism in society, then the activity may not be protected.
Duty to bargain over COVID-19 emergency measures
Another hot topic for the '20s! Does an employer have to bargain with the union before undertaking emergency measures to address COVID-19?
Not necessarily.
In a case involving a hospital employer who took measures to comply with COVID-related legal and safety requirements, the Advice division said the employer "should be permitted to, at least initially, act unilaterally during the pandemic so long as its actions are reasonably related to the emergency situation." Once that is done, the employer should begin bargaining over the decision and its effects "within a reasonable time thereafter." In this case, the employer did that, so the Advice division recommended dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge.
The measures taken by the employer initially without bargaining included "[personal protective equipment], visitor restrictions, COVID-related paid leave and time away from work, delegation of [intensive care unit] nurse duties to others, travel reimbursement policy to implement social distancing, event reporting processing for COVID-related events, and assignments/safety protocols for immunocompromised or pregnant staff."
In another case involving an employer's adoption of COVID-related measures (allegedly) without bargaining, the Advice division found that the management-rights clause in the contract gave the employer discretion to take the action without bargaining. In any event, the employer had tried to bargain, but the union was bullheaded, which resulted in an impasse -- and which also gave the employer the right to take the actions unilaterally.
Image Credits: From flickr, Creative Commons license. NLRB logo by Paul Swansen, Mona Lisa (2020 version) by FolsomNatural.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010