NLRB Announces Partnership with Melwood to Provide Training Opportunities for those with Differing Abilities

WASHINGTON, DC, October 31, 2019—The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it is partnering with the nonprofit organization Melwood to provide on-the-job training and federal office work experience for persons of differing abilities.

As one of the area’s leading nonprofit employers and advocates in the DC region, Melwood provides job training, employment, and recreational services to thousands of people of differing abilities each year. Melwood proudly supports and facilitates the employment goals of its participants who want to work in either the public or private sector through customized training and support partnership programs, such as the program being announced today. The NLRB supports equal access to full employment, including for persons of differing abilities and persons with targeted disabilities, as specified under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We look forward to our partnership with Melwood. As we continue to create a more inclusive workforce, we welcome participants in the program to the Agency.” said NLRB Chairman John Ring.

NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb stated, “The agency looks forward to welcoming these individuals and I know they will gain valuable experience working alongside the staff here at the NLRB.”

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers

The National Labor Relations Board’s order to a union to cease urging certain persons to engage in a strike or refuse to work did not violate the First Amendment where the order involved communications addressed to neutral employees within the tightly regulated contours of labor negotiations.

National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers - filed Oct. 28, 2019

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-73210

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System

Employees are eligible for a disability retirement under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System pursuant to Government Code §21156 when, due to a disability, they can no longer perform their usual duties at the only location where their employer will allow them to work, even if they might be able to perform those duties at a theoretical different location.

McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System - filed Oct. 25, 2019, First District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3265

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc.

When a temporary staffing service employee asserts a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim against a contracting employer, the determination of whether the contracting employer qualifies as the employer of the staffing service employee does not depend on whether the contracting employer exerted more control over the employee than the staffing service company; the focus is on the contracting employer individually.

Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. - filed Oct. 17, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3185

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel

A worker’s regular rate of compensation for calculating meal or rest break premium payments is not the same thing as her regular rate of pay for calculating overtime premium payments. An employer’s facially neutral policy for rounding employee work time does not systematically undercompensate its employees.

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel - filed Oct. 9, 2019, Second District, Div. Three

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3095

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises

The ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court addresses claims that workers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than covered employees, and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability; the governing standard for determining the existence of a joint employment relationship remains Martinez v. Combs. A corporation was not the joint employer of a service station worker, even though his employer was contractually obligated to perform certain tasks for the corporation, since the employer alone dictated how those tasks would be performed, the corporation had no power to fire the worker, and did not have the ability to hinder his work.

Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises - filed Oct. 8, 2019, First District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3053

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit

The ABC test adopted in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court is retroactively applicable to pending litigation on wage and hour claims; the ABC test applies with equal force to Labor Code claims that seek to enforce the fundamental protections afforded by wage order provisions; and statutory claims alleging misclassification not directly premised on wage order protections, and which do not fall within the generic category of wage and hour laws, are appropriately analyzed under the test established in S.G. Borello and Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations.

Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit - filed Oct. 8, 2019, Second District, Div. Four

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3060

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Processing Results Improvements Consistent with Agency’s Strategic Plan Goals

WASHINGTON, DC, October 7, 2019—The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reported improved case processing statistics for FY 2019. The results reflect a renewed focus on more-timely processing of cases, which is part of the Agency’s strategic plan goals. 

The Board issued 303 decisions in contested cases during FY 2019. Adopting a case processing pilot program, the Board committed itself to expediting cases in order to better serve the parties and the American public. Under the program, there was particular focus on issuing decisions in some of the oldest cases. As a result, the median age of all cases pending before the Board was reduced from 233 days in FY 2018 to 157 days at the end of FY 2019, an almost 33% reduction.

In addition, the Board significantly reduced the number of cases pending before the Board to its lowest level since 2012.  As of the end of FY2019, the number of pending cases was reduced from 281 at the end of FY 2018 to 227 currently, a reduction of almost 20%.

During the same time period, the Regional Offices made exceptional strides to meet our strategic goal to reduce case processing time by 20% over four years. In just one year, the Regions overall nearly met our four-year goal by reducing the time of filing to disposition of unfair labor practice cases from 90 to 74 days, a decrease of 17.5%.

The Regions also overall reduced the time from informal settlement to final disposition of an unfair labor practice case from 173 to 153 days, a decrease of 11.5% and improved the timeliness of representation case handling by processing 90.9% of representation cases in 100 days or less.

The Regional Office settlement rate was 99.1% this past fiscal year, resolving over 5,000 cases prior to issuing complaint and over 800 cases post-complaint. Additionally, compliance was achieved in over 400 cases in which Board orders issued. The Regions also collected over $21.2 million dollars in backpay, fees, dues fines and reimbursements for employees. 

These are outstanding results in a fiscal year in which 18,549 unfair labor practice charges and 2,096 representation cases were filed in our Regional Offices.  

Chairman John Ring stated, “The statistics announced today are further evidence that our efforts to reduce case backlog and ensure timely consideration of cases is bearing fruit. Resolving labor disputes more quickly is one of the best ways we can advance the purposes of the Act.”   

General Counsel Peter Robb stated, “I commend the dedication of the entire NLRB staff, especially those in the field offices, for achieving these outstanding results, which puts all on notice that violations of the Act will be addressed quickly and effectively.”

Established in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees and employers from unfair labor practices and protects the right of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. The NLRB conducts hundreds of workplace elections and investigates thousands of unfair labor practice charges each year.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commission (Montez)

A deputy sheriff’s failure to report two incidents of abuse of an inmate constituted an inexcusable neglect of his duty to safeguard the jail population; his lies during the subsequent investigation hindered rectification of the situation, brought discredit upon his position and department, and forever undermined his credibility; it is simply intolerable that dishonesty and a culture of silence that countenances abuse of prisoners be permitted within the ranks of those charged with public safety and welfare, and the civil service commission to reduce the deputy’s discharge to a 30-day suspension was an abuse of discretion.

County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commission (Montez) - filed Oct. 3, 2019, Second District, Div. One

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2998

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

NLRB Extends Time for Submitting Comments on Proposed Election Protection Rule

WASHINGTON, DC—The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is extending the time for submitting comments regarding its proposed amendments to Part 103 of its Rules and Regulations for an additional 60 days beyond the current deadline of October 11, 2019. The proposed amendments concern the Board’s blocking charge policy, voluntary recognition bar, and Section 9(a) recognition in the construction industry. 

The submission window is currently open and interested parties may now file comments on or before Tuesday, December 10, 2019. Comments replying to the comments submitted during the initial comment period must be received by the Board on or before December 24, 2019.  

The Federal Register will announce and publish this extension of time during the week of October 7, 2019.

Public comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed rule and should be submitted either electronically to www.regulations.gov, or by mail or hand-delivery to Roxanne Rothschild, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570-0001.

Established in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees and employers from unfair labor practices and protects the right of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. The NLRB conducts hundreds of workplace elections and investigates thousands of unfair labor practice charges each year.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles

To prevail on a claim for a violation of Labor Code §1102.5(c), the plaintiff must identify both the specific activity and the specific statute, rule, or regulation at issue; the court must then determine the legal question whether the identified activity would result in a violation or noncompliance with the identified statute, rule, or regulation, and, if so, the jury must determine the factual issue whether the plaintiff was retaliated against for refusing to participate in the identified activity. A trial court erred in instructing a jury that a worker could establish he was subjected to an adverse employment action for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act even if no violation of FEHA was committed.

Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles - filed Oct. 1, 2019, Second District, Div. Four

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2929

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of the University of California

A reasonable trier of fact could find that a bulletin issued by a public university was an attempt to influence the decision of employees as to the issue of unionization, even though the bulletin professed the university’s neutrality on the issue, the bulletin was couched in terms of providing employees with facts, and it did not threaten the employees with reprisals if they unionized. While noncoercive communications falling under Government Code §3571.3 will not qualify as unfair labor practices, such communications may still violate §16645.6.

Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of the University of California - filed Sept. 30, 2019, First District, Div. Five

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2903

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Salazar v. McDonald’s Corporation

Under California common law, a franchisor cannot be classified as an employer of its franchisees’ workers; a franchisor also is not an agent of a franchisee who can be held liable for wage-and-hour violations under an ostensible-agency theory.

Salazar v. McDonald’s Corporation - filed Oct. 1, 2019

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-15673

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com