Board Issues Decision Ending Practice of Consent Orders

August 22, 2024 Today, the Board issued a decision in Metro Health, Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio San Pedras overruling UPMC (2017) and holding that the Board will no longer accept “consent orders,” where an Administrative Law Judge resolves an unfair labor practice case based on terms offered by the Respondent but objected to by both the Charging Party and the General Counsel. The Board majority concludes that the current practice fails to serve the goals of the National Labor Relations Act because it does not facilitate a truly mutual resolution of labor disputes. The decision explains that the practice of accepting consent orders seems contrary to the language of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, creates administrative difficulties and inefficiencies, and tends to interfere with the prosecutorial authority of the General Counsel. The Board, however, reaffirmed its longstanding practice of accepting true settlement agreements between a respondent and the General Counsel and/or a charging party in lieu of finally adjudicating an unfair labor practice case on the merits, where accepting the settlement would effectuate the policies of the Act. “Because consent orders do not represent a real agreement between opposing parties to resolve a case, they do not promote labor peace in the same manner as a true settlement,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. “Our decision in Hospital Metropolitano preserves the benefits of true settlements, while eliminating a practice that has no foundation in the Act or our regulations.” Members Prouty and Wilcox joined Chairman McFerran in issuing the decision. Member Kaplan dissented.

Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare

Noncompetition agreements arising from the sale of an entire business interest are void per se, but a sale of a partial business interest differs drastically from the sale of an entire business interest, and so a noncompetition provision arising from a partial sale cannot be deemed inherently anticompetitive and invalidated per se; the provision must be scrutinized under the reasonableness standard to determine whether it has procompetitive benefits given the nature of the selling owner’s continuing connection to the business. Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare - filed Aug. 20, 2024, Fourth District, Div. Three Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 2870 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0824//G061911.

NetChoice v. Bonta; filed Aug. 16, 202

Employment A national trade association of online businesses that promotes free speech on the Internet was likely to succeed in showing that the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act’s requirement that covered businesses opine on and mitigate the risk that children may be exposed to harmful or potentially harmful materials online facially violates the First Amendment. NetChoice v. Bonta; filed Aug. 16, 202 http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0824//23-2969 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-296

Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands - filed Aug. 1, 2024

Employment Law Pilots qualify as highly compensated employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements; time pilots spend waiting for a request to fly did not constitute work mandating overtime pay because they could and did freely engage in personal activities during this time. Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands - filed Aug. 1, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-15311 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0824//23-15311.