Written by Carly Epstein

Why This Matters

Last week, the California Supreme Court dealt tech giant Apple Inc. a blow when the Court ruled that California law requires the company to compensate employees for the time they spend waiting for company-required searches before leaving Apple’s retail stores.

To the extent California employers require their workers to undergo unpaid security screenings, the Apple ruling means employers must now either compensate their employees for that time or dispense with their mandatory bag-check/security screening policies.  If the latter isn’t an option, employers may be best served by speeding up their security screens.  The Supreme Court suggested several measures an employer could adopt to limit the scope of searches, such as imposing “reasonable restrictions on the size, shape or number of bags” workers bring and providing workers with off-site lockers in which to store their personal items.

Continue reading “California High Court Rules That Employers Must Pay Employees For Exit Searches”

Written by Jonathan Turner and Daniel Innamorati 

In a burst of year-end activity, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) largely overturned multiple Obama-era labor decisions and returned to long-standing NLRB precedents that favor employer’s property rights and abilities to regulate the workplace.  Here, we will look at these rulings and how they impact federal labor law.

Caesars – Employers may restrict employees’ email use to business purposes

Employees do not have a statutory right under the NLRA to use their employer’s email system or other information technology (“IT”) resources for NLRA Section 7 purposes.  In doing so, the NLRB reversed its 2014 ruling in Purple Communications that held workplace rules prohibiting employee email use for Section 7 activity were presumptively invalid. (Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities.”)

Continue reading “NLRB Continues Trend to Create a More Business Friendly Environment by Reversing Obama-Era Labor Decisions”

Written by Jonathan Turner

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

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) recently fashioned a new, business-friendly 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 National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Under the new standard, set forth in M.V. Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66, the Board has adopted the “contract coverage” test fashioned and historically applied by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  In doing so, the Board abandoned the “clear and unmistakable waiver” test traditionally applied by the Board.  Under the new standard, the Board first determines if the contract provision relied on by the employer covers the employer’s action challenged by the union.  If so, the Board will conclude that “the agreement … authorized the employer to make the disputed change unilaterally, and the employer will not have violated [the NLRA].”  If, on the other hand, there are no provisions in the CBA that covers a disputed unilateral change, the Board then will consider whether the union nevertheless waived its right to bargain over the change.  In making this latter determination the Board will continue to apply the “clear and unmistakable waiver… analysis to determine whether some combination of contractual language, bargaining history, and past practice establishes that the union waived its right to bargain regarding a challenged unilateral change.” Continue reading “NLRB Adopts Employer-Friendly Standard Regarding What Constitutes a Unilateral Change in Violation of the NLRA”

Written by Jeremy Mittman and Stephen Rossi

Finally, an employer-friendly law passed in California! Unfortunately, it only affects a small number of employees— but for those employers that are implicated, the law is a welcome reprieve.

On September 5, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 671, the “Photoshoot Pay Easement Act,” which went into effect immediately.  This law specifies that any short-term print shoot employee (from models to crew members) can be paid on the employer’s next regular pay day (including by mail), rather than on the last day they work. Continue reading “Print Shoot Pay Delay”