Ruelas v. County of Alameda

Non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under California Labor Code §1194, even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals. Ruelas v. County of Alameda - filed July 26, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 21-16528 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0724//21-16528

NLRB Issues Fair Choice–Employee Voice Final Rule

Today, the Board issued its Fair Choice–Employee Voice Final Rule, restoring three key policies that provide workers with a fair opportunity to decide whether they want union representation in the workplace and a process that respects workers’ choices: the blocking charge policy, voluntary recognition of a union, and construction industry bargaining relationships. The Final Rule returns to the Board’s pre-2020 practice on blocking charges before an election, restoring a Regional Director’s authority to delay an election if unfair labor practice conduct is sufficiently serious to interfere with employee free choice. Today’s rule reverses the Board’s 2020 rule requiring Regional Directors to run elections in an election environment tainted by unfair labor practices. Secondly, today’s rule supports workers’ and employers’ ability to establish a bargaining relationship through voluntary recognition. It removes the 2020 rule’s requirement that when an employer chooses to voluntarily recognize a union that represents a majority of its workers, the parties provide for a mandatory 45-day period to allow the opportunity for a minority of workers to demand an election questioning that choice. The rule also restores the Board’s 56-year-old voluntary recognition bar, respecting the bargaining relationship that the parties have voluntarily chosen. Finally, the Fair Choice – Employee Voice rule grants parity between unions in the construction industry and other unions. Because of the transitory nature of work in the construction industry, construction-worker unions that are recognized under Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act do not have the same protections as non-construction unions. The new rules allow construction-worker unions to more readily establish the same protections as other unions, providing a more stable foundation for collective bargaining. “Today’s rule restores the Board’s prior law, including longstanding principles that ensure a fair process for workers to choose whether they want representation, and provide a better foundation to allow collective bargaining relationships to thrive,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published by the Federal Register on November 3, 2022 and the comment period for initial comments was open until February 2, 2023. The Board received a variety of comments that it reviewed and considered in drafting the Final Rule. The effective date of the new rule is September 30th, and the rule will only be applied to cases filed after the effective date. Members Prouty and Wilcox joined Chairman McFerran in issuing the Final Rule. Member Kaplan dissented.

Castellanos v. State - filed July 25, 2024

Employment Law Business and Professions Code §7451 does not conflict with article XIV, §4 of the California Constitution because the latter provision does not preclude the electorate from exercising its initiative power to legislate on matters affecting workers’ compensation. Castellanos v. State - filed July 25, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 2525 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0724//S279622

Okonowsky v. Garland - filed July 25, 2024

Employment Law A totality of the circumstances in a Title VII sexually hostile work environment claim includes evidence of sexually harassing conduct, even if it does not expressly target the plaintiff, as well as evidence of non-sexual conduct directed at the plaintiff that a jury could find retaliatory or intimidating. Okonowsky v. Garland - filed July 25, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-55404 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0724//23-55404.

Region 6-Pittsburgh Obtains Settlement of More than $198,000 for Unlawfully Withheld Wage Increases and Terminations of Workers

On July 5, 2024, the Regional Director of the NLRB’s Region 6-Pittsburgh office obtained a settlement agreement involving four unfair labor practice charges filed by the United Steelworkers International Union against Hello Neighbor, a Pittsburgh nonprofit. The unfair labor practice charges alleged multiple violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) by Hello Neighbor, including unlawfully terminating five employees for their union support and a supervisor for failing to commit unfair labor practices, as well as denying wage increases to 22 employees. Hello Neighbor agreed to pay more than $198,000 to the employees which includes backpay, wage increases, interest, and compensation for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that resulted from the unfair labor practices. Among other remedies obtained in the settlement, Hello Neighbor agreed to: Post and email a remedial notice to all employees who have worked at Hello Neighbor since January 2023; Post an Explanation of Rights under the Act for a one-year period; Rescind discipline and provide a neutral reference for all of the terminated employees and supervisor; Rescind the overly broad Proprietary Information, Confidentiality of Agreement, and Non-Disparagement portions of the separation agreement and notify employees who signed it that those provisions have been rescinded. “I am proud of the Region 6 staff for their efforts in protecting employee rights and achieving a settlement in accordance with the General Counsel’s goal of obtaining fully restorative relief,” said NLRB Region 6 Regional Director Nancy Wilson. “This settlement vindicates employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act by achieving significant monetary remedies for direct or foreseeable harms, along with provisions to ensure the employer’s future compliance with the Act.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

NLRB General Counsel Reaffirms Commitment to Seeking Injunctions to Protect Workers’ Rights

In a new memorandum to all field offices released today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo reaffirmed her commitment to seeking Section 10(j) injunctions after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, which set a uniform four-part test applicable to all Section 10(j) injunction petitions. Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) authorizes the NLRB to seek injunctions against employers and unions in federal district courts to stop unfair labor practices and ensure that employees’ rights will be adequately protected from remedial failure due to the passage of time. General Counsel Abruzzo explained that, while the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. provides a uniform standard to be applied in all Section 10(j) injunctions nationwide, adoption of this standard will not have a significant impact on the Agency’s Section 10(j) program as the Agency has ample experience litigating injunctions under that standard and has a high rate of success in obtaining injunctions under the four-part test —a success rate equivalent to or higher than the success rate in circuit courts that applied the two-part test. “Effective enforcement of our statute requires that we timely protect employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in union and protected concerted activities free from retaliation,” said General Counsel Abruzzo. “Thus, it remains my intention to aggressively seek Section 10(j) injunctions where necessary to preserve the status quo and efficacy of Board final orders. And, I have no doubt that the Regions will continue to be successful in obtaining injunctive relief at around the same rate.” General Counsel Abruzzo previously released a memorandum underscoring the importance of 10(j) injunction proceedings and affirming the Agency’s priority in continuing efforts to obtain immediate relief in cases that present a significant risk of remedial failure. She also announced an initiative to seek injunctions in certain cases where workers have been subject to threats or other coercive conduct during an organizing campaign, as well as a memorandum about settlement agreements providing for interim relief pending adjudication.

Kama v. Mayorkas - filed July 19, 2024

Employment Law The temporal proximity between a workers formal equal employment office complaint and the date on which his employment was terminated was not sufficient, by itself, to show pretext where the gap was 56 days, and there was also a temporal link between his failure to cooperate in an investigation of his conduct and his termination. Kama v. Mayorkas - filed July 19, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-55106 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0724//23-55106.