Board Limits Employer-Friendly Unilateral Change Rule’s Application Following Expiration of CBA

Written by Jonathan Turner and Grant Goeckner 

Spoiler Alert – unless you regularly deal with collective bargaining agreements you may find this a tad wonky.

As we have seen over the time of the current administration, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has applied a more business-friendly approach when deciding cases arising under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  While many of those cases have re-examined prior Board precedents set during the Obama administration, the current Board’s willingness to reverse course is not without limit, as we recently saw in Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, 369 NLRB No. 61.  In Nexstar, the employer asked the Board to extend the reach of the “contract coverage” rule adopted by the Board in late 2019 in M.V. Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66.  That rule set forth a new standard for determining when an employer’s action taken in reliance on contractual provisions under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) constitutes a “unilateral change” in violation of the NLRA.  Under the new standard, which we discussed in a prior client alert, the Board held that if an employer makes a change to working conditions without bargaining with the union, the Board will first look to whether the plain language of the CBA grants the employer the right to make the change.  If the CBA permits the action, there is no violation of the NLRA.  If the CBA does not, further analysis is needed.  [Full Alert Available Here]. Continue reading “Board Limits Employer-Friendly Unilateral Change Rule’s Application Following Expiration of CBA”

COVID-19 Client Communication, Vol. 16

Below please find our latest alerts regarding COVID-19’s effect on various policies and laws. Feel free to read and share, and contact us if there is anything we can do to help you or your business maintain compliance in this ever-evolving situation. How Can Grocery Stores Protect Themselves? As citizens lose patience with the stay-at-home orders, we can expect a surge in protests. Grocery stores … Continue reading COVID-19 Client Communication, Vol. 16

How Can Grocery Stores Protect Themselves?

Preparing for Grocery Store Protests

Written by Emily F. Evitt

As Californians lose patience with the stay-at-home orders, we can expect more protests across the state.  And as customers face shortages and stores enforce limits on their purchases, protests at grocery stores may be particularly likely.  How can grocery stores protect themselves?

California’s Constitution grants broader free speech rights than the First Amendment.  Indeed, under certain circumstances – namely cases involving shopping malls – courts have held that California’s free speech right extends to private property where that property is the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum.  See Robbins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979). Continue reading “How Can Grocery Stores Protect Themselves?”

Protecting At-Risk Employees

Employers Cannot Exclude At-Risk Employees, Says EEOC in New Return-to-Work Guidance 

Written by Jeremy Mittman and Carly Epstein

The EEOC recently answered the question whether employers can bar from the workplace employees who, according to the CDC, are at a “higher risk for severe illness” if they get COVID-19.

In the words of the EEOC in its press release: “It is important that employers understand that the ADA does not allow them to act against employees solely because the employee has a CDC-listed underlying medical condition.”

An employer cannot exclude — or take any other adverse action against — an employee solely because he/she falls within the CDC identified high risk category.  Instead, the employer must determine whether the “employee’s disability poses a ‘direct threat’ to his health that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Continue reading “Protecting At-Risk Employees”

Workers Comp For COVID-19

Contracting COVID-19 Through Work Is Now Presumed Under California Workers Compensation

Written by Jeremy Mittman and Louise Truong 

On May 6, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-62-20, which provides that any COVID-19 related illness that an employee contracts between March 19, 2020 and July 5, 2020 shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.  This presumption will only apply if all of the following conditions are met: Continue reading “Workers Comp For COVID-19”

No Clowning Around About Copyright Authorship: Everly v. Everly

Written by Robert H. Rotstein and Orly Ravid

In Everly v. Everly, No. 19-5150 (6th Cir. 2020, May 4, 2020), the Sixth Circuit weighed into a fraternal feud that has continued long after the death of Phil Everly, who, with his brother Don, performed as the iconic rock & roll duo The Everly Brothers. The questions before the court: when Phil in 1980 granted his ownership rights to Don in the hit song Cathy’s Clown, did Don expressly repudiate Phil’s status as a co-author of the song? Or did Phil retain his rights as a co-author?

The Everly Brothers released the hit classic Cathy’s Clown in 1960.  Phil and Don were listed as co-authors, received royalties, and publicly presented themselves as co-authors. In 1980, after the brothers stopped speaking, Don asked Phil for the rights to Cathy’s Clown. The brothers executed a Release and Assignment in which Phil agreed to “release, and transfer, [  ] all of his rights, interests and claim in and to [Cathy’s Clown and other] compositions, including rights to royalties and his claim as co-composer, effective June 1, 1980.” Although after the 1980 Release and Assignment, Acuff-Rose listed only Don as author, the brothers made public statements crediting Phil as a co-author. Continue reading “No Clowning Around About Copyright Authorship: Everly v. Everly”

COVID-19 Client Communication, Vol. 15

Below please find our latest alerts regarding COVID-19’s effect on various policies and laws. Feel free to read and share, and contact us if there is anything we can do to help you or your business maintain compliance in this ever-evolving situation. Securities Litigation Ahead? You didn’t cause COVID-19, you didn’t shut down the economy, but could you be held liable? This alert provides some … Continue reading COVID-19 Client Communication, Vol. 15

Will COVID-19 Cause Securities Litigation?

Written by John Durrant

As of May 5, 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has accompanied a precipitous descent in the domestic securities markets, followed by a surprisingly sharp rebound. Such volatility may well give rise to several different types of potential liability against companies and their officers and directors, including:

  • Securities fraud claims under the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
  • Claims related to offerings of securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).
  • Claims under the various state securities claims, i.e., the “Blue Sky” laws.
  • Derivative suits arising under state law.

Business leaders may well say, “Wait, we didn’t cause COVID-19; we didn’t shut down the economy; how can we be held liable?” Continue reading “Will COVID-19 Cause Securities Litigation?”

No R&R for LA Employers Under New Recall and Retention Ordinances

Two New Los Angeles Ordinances Create New Worker Recall and Retention Protections… For Select Businesses Written by Jeremy Mittman and Bethanie Thau  On May 4, 2020, Mayor Garcetti signed two new city ordinances creating recall and retention protections for non-supervisory workers in certain industries deemed severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and “Safer at Home” declarations by Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti. The COVID-19 Right … Continue reading No R&R for LA Employers Under New Recall and Retention Ordinances

SEC Offers an Elixir for Small Businesses Feeling the Financial Effects of COVID-19

Written by Mark T. Hiraide

In response to the ill effects the coronavirus pandemic is having on business, the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2020 adopted a temporary final rule to make it easier for existing businesses to raise up to $250,000 through Regulation Crowdfunding.

Under the relaxed rules, which are in effect only until August 31, 2020, a business is excused from complying with the Regulation Crowdfunding requirement to have its financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant. During this limited period, the SEC is requiring only certain information from the business’ Federal income tax returns certified by the principal executive officer. That represents a significant time and financial savings for companies – especially small businesses – that need a quick infusion of capital during rough times caused by the COVID-19 virus. Continue reading “SEC Offers an Elixir for Small Businesses Feeling the Financial Effects of COVID-19”