NLRB Wins $3.12 Million for Unlawfully Fired Workers in Settlement with MasTec and DIRECTV

NLRB Wins $3.12 Million for Unlawfully Fired Workers in Settlement with MasTec and DIRECTV 06/30/2022 12:41 PM EDT June 30, 2022 As part of a settlement approved on June 1, 2022, by Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler, MasTec Advanced Technologies (MasTec), has agreed to pay 26 former employees $3.12 million in backpay, interest, and expenses. The dispute began in 2006 when 26 service technicians employed by MasTec, a contractor of DIRECTV, LLC f/k/a DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) that installs satellite TV receivers, were fired after reaching out to a local television station and participating in an interview with a local reporter, which was broadcast in the Orlando, Florida area. In the interview, the technicians voiced their frustration with the new pay structure implemented by their employer, which was based upon the technicians’ ability to convince customers to agree to a particular installation option. The technicians expressed concern with their supervisors telling them to tell customers whatever it took to convince them to agree and with losing money if they did not convince customers. One technician said they were just asking to be treated fairly. Region 12-Tampa of the NLRB investigated and tried the case before an Administrative Law Judge. On July 21, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board determined that the employees’ participation in the TV interview constituted protected concerted activity. Consequently, it found that by causing the discharge of the technicians for their participation in the newscast, and by discharging them, DIRECTV and MasTec committed unfair labor practices. In September 2016, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s order, including the requirement that DIRECTV and MasTec make the unlawfully discharged employees whole. In October 2021, the D.C. Circuit held MasTec in contempt of court, and granted, among other things, costs, expenses, and substantial prospective fines for future violations. On November 30, 2021, Region 14-St. Louis of the NLRB issued a compliance specification setting forth the amounts owed by MasTec and DIRECTV and entered into negotiations that led to the settlement. Region 12 Director David Cohen said, “Workers have the right to speak out publicly about their pay and working conditions, and the NLRB will continue to vigorously protect that right. This very meaningful settlement is the result of an excellent and persistent team effort by Agency personnel, and I greatly appreciate the hard work of all who were involved. This includes the investigation and litigation of the unfair labor practices before the Administrative Law Judge and the Board by Region 12 staff, the litigation efforts to obtain enforcement of the Board Decision and Order in the D.C. Circuit by the Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Branch, and the investigation, litigation, and negotiation of backpay and other compliance matters led by Region 14 staff, with significant assistance from the staffs of Region 4 and the Contempt, Compliance and Special Litigation Branch of the Office of Legal Counsel.” “I want to thank the many NLRB staff that helped win this significant settlement for the workers who were unjustly fired for exercising their right to engage in protected concerted activity,” said Region 14 Director Andrea J. Wilkes. For more information, contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

U.S. District Court Orders Arbah Hotel Corporation to Pay Fines and NLRB Attorney Fees, Holding Arbah in Contempt of Injunction to Bargain in Good Faith

On May 13, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Region 22 of the NLRB’s Petition for contempt against Arbah Hotel Corporation and its affiliate The View Hotel, Inc. for failing to comply with the Court’s prior temporary injunction. To remedy Arbah’s failure to comply, the Court ordered Arbah to pay the NLRB attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered prospective fines of $10,000, in addition to daily fines, if Arbah continued not to comply with the court’s order. The Employer operated the Meadowlands View Hotel in North Bergen, New Jersey. The employees —room attendants, porters, drivers, maintenance, cooks, waiters, waitresses, and dishwashers—were represented by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the Union). In February 2020, the Employer subcontracted their work and falsely blamed the Union for their layoffs. In April 2021, the United States District Court issued an order granting the injunctive relief, thus requiring Arbah to recognize and bargain with the Union over a successor collective-bargaining agreement and over the terms of a preferential hiring list. The order also required Arbah to offer reinstatement to the unit employees as their positions became available, provide the information requested by the Union, mail the court order to the unit employees, and to post the court order at the hotel when it reopens. Because the Employer failed to comply with significant parts of the injunction, including the order to bargain over a successor contract and the terms of a preferential hiring list, District Court Judge John Michael Vazquez held Arbah in contempt, ordered Arbah to pay the NLRB’s attorneys’ fees and costs and imposed prospective fines in the case of continued noncompliance. Judge Vazquez also requested additional briefing on whether Arbah’s owner, Mark Wysocki, should be held personally liable for contempt of the order. Regional Director Suzanne Sullivan noted, “This case serves as a cautionary tale for violators of the National Labor Relations Act: the NLRB will pursue all available remedies for employees who are victims of unfair labor practices under the NLRA and will vigorously pursue legal action to ensure that violators adhere to the court’s orders. I want to thank Field Attorney Sharon Chau and Acting Regional Attorney Julie Kaufman for their tireless work on this case.” For more information, please contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille - filed June 28, 2022, First District, Div. One

The filing of the Initial Report or Claim form initiates the Berman hearing procedure. Labor Code §558.1 must be interpreted as allowing for a private right of action. Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille - filed June 28, 2022, First District, Div. One Cite as 2022 S.O.S. 2760 For more information, contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Ensuring Access for Immigrant Workers to NLRB Processes

05/02/2022 10:09 AM EDT May 02, 2022 Today, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo released a new protocol to advance immigrant worker protections to freely exercise rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and safely participate in NLRB investigations. In a memo issued to all field offices, the NLRB’s Division of Operations Management advised Regions to distribute information (available in English and Spanish) to all witnesses advising them that immigration status is not relevant to whether there has been a violation of the NLRA, that information obtained during NLRB investigations is protected, and that a charging party or witness can ask the NLRB to seek immigration relief for employees at a worksite if it is necessary to protect employees who are participating in NLRB processes or exercising their rights under the NLRA. “One of my top priorities as General Counsel is to ensure that NLRB processes are accessible for all workers,” said General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. “All too often, immigrant workers are subject to unlawful intimidation tactics that seek to silence them, denigrate their right to act together to seek improved wages and working conditions, and thwart their willingness to report statutory violations. The NLRB will do everything we can to protect immigrant workers to exercise their rights under the NLRA and to pursue any interference with those rights by participating in the NLRB’s processes.” In addition to distributing written information, Board agents will also verbally advise a witness before taking their testimony in an affidavit that an individual’s immigration or work authorization status is not relevant to our investigation of whether the NLRA has been violated, and that the NLRB will not inquire about the individual’s immigration or work authorization status. Information Officers who assist visitors or callers with preparing a charge for the individual to review and file will provide a copy of the fact sheet along with the draft of the charge. Today’s memo is part of an initiative the General Counsel announced in November in GC 22-01, which sets out casehandling procedures and other efforts to ensure immigrant workers can freely exercise their rights under the NLRA and have effective remedies when those rights are violated. For more information, contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

NLRB Modifies Timing of Electronic Notice Posting in Workplaces Impacted by COVID-19

June 02, 2022 Washington, D.C. — In a decision issued today in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104, the National Labor Relations Board modified the timing of its electronic notice-posting requirement in circumstances where an employer has not yet reopened its facility due to COVID-19, or where a substantial complement of employees has not yet returned to work on site, and the employer is communicating with employees by electronic means. Under prior law, both physical and any electronic notice posting were deferred in either circumstance to within 14 days of the facility’s reopening and staffing by a substantial complement of employees, as prescribed in Danbury Ambulance Service, 369 NLRB No. 68 (2020). In today’s decision, a Board majority (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty) held that any required electronic notice posting must occur within 14 days after service by the Region, while retaining the Danbury schedule as to physical posting of the notice. The majority found that advancing the timing of the electronic notice posting to more promptly notify employees of unfair labor practices committed against them, and the steps that would be taken to remedy those violations, would better effectuate the purposes of the Act. Dissenting on this issue, Members Kaplan and Ring would have adhered to Danbury in its entirety. “As our country continues recover from the pandemic, it is important that the Board’s remedies remain relevant to the realities of the workforce,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. “This prompt posting of the notice by electronic means will best effectuate the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act by providing workers with timely notice of unfair labor practices and the steps that will be taken to remedy them.” For more information, contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

NLRB Region 3-Buffalo Files in Federal Court Seeking Nationwide Cease and Desist Order Against Starbucks, Reinstatement for Seven Workers, and a Bargaining Order

Today, National Labor Relations Board Region 3-Buffalo Regional Director Linda M. Leslie petitioned in United States District Court for injunctive relief for seven former Starbucks employees in Buffalo, New York who were unlawfully fired for exercising their right to form a union. 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 where, due to the passage of time, the normal Board processes are likely to be inadequate to effectively remedy the alleged violations. The petition explains that, after learning about the organizing effort, Starbucks immediately set its vigorous antiunion campaign in motion, employing an expansive array of illegal tactics such as raising wages, promising benefits, bringing in a cadre of managers to monitor employees and discourage union activity, closing stores with active organizing drives, and threatening employees—culminating in the discharge of seven union activists at five different stores over the course of six weeks. The Regional Director is seeking an interim Gissel bargaining order for Camp Road employees because traditional Board remedies will be unable to restore “laboratory conditions” to enable the NLRB to conduct a free and fair rerun election. She is also seeking a broad nationwide cease-and-desist order that would be applicable to all the Employer’s facilities in the United States along with a national posting of the district court’s decision and order at all Starbucks facilities to fully notify employees of their NLRA rights and the protections being afforded by the court’s order. “Absent immediate interim relief, Starbucks will achieve its goal, through unlawful means, of irreparably harming the campaign in Buffalo, and sending a clear chilling message to its employees across the country,” said Region 3’s Regional Director Linda M. Leslie. “We are asking the Court to swiftly grant the injunction so that the unlawfully discharged workers can return to work and effectively exercise their right to engage in union activities, including collectively bargain a union contract.” If granted, the injunction would provide interim relief while the case is being litigated. Regional Director Leslie issued a consolidated complaint on May 19, 2022 containing over 200 allegations of unfair labor practices by Starbucks. A hearing on the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge is set for July 11, 2022. For more information, please contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association

Municipalities are entitled to a good faith defense to a suit for a refund of mandatory agency fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association - filed June 23, 2022 Cite as 2022 S.O.S. 19-17217 For more information, please contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Garcia v. Superior Court (Haralambos Beverage)

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s order concluding California’s meal and rest break rules were preempted under the Motor Carrier Safety Act does not apply to bar meal and rest break claims arising from conduct that predated the December 2018 order. Garcia v. Superior Court (Haralambos Beverage) - filed June 21, 2022, Second District, Div. Five Cite as 2022 S.O.S. 2633 For more information, please contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Meza v. Pacific Bell Telephone

The statutory requirement to list on the wage statement hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at such rates does not encompass a requirement that an employer list the rates and hours from prior pay periods underlying an overtime true-up calculation. Meza v. Pacific Bell Telephone - filed June 17, 2022, Second District, Div. Three Cite as 2022 S.O.S. 2590 For more information, contact us at: http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/