ICYMI — Dems Intro “WAGE” Act: We reported last week on the drastic legislative proposal introduced to increase NLRB penalties against employers, to facilitate union organizing. In addition to our summary piece and this document including proposed changes to the NLRA in redline, we provided links to some additional resources and coverage. Add to those, this Washington Examiner piece and this EPI post promoting the bill.
Three For The Road: Law360 ($) today summarizes three notable NLRB decisions issued during former Member Harry Johnson’s final days on the job. Lest they be lost in the overshadowing of the Board’s major Browning-Ferris decision, the piece highlights:
- GVS Properties, 362 NLRB No. 194, Case No. 29-CA-077359 (Aug. 27 2015), wherein the Board ruled that an employer “which purchased several properties in New York City and was legally obligated to retain building service workers, qualified as a successor employer that had to bargain with a union that represented workers at those properties.”
- Lincoln Lutherine of Racine, 362 NLRB No. 188, Case No. 30-CA-111099 (Aug. 27, 2015), which we discussed here, wherein the Board cast aside 50 years of precedent to require employers to continue union dues checkoff payments following contract expiration.
- On Assignment Staffing Services, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 189, 32-CA-095025 (Aug. 27, 2015), in which the Board “declared that mandatory arbitration agreements that require workers to waive their right to pursue class or collective action claims violated federal labor law.”
Joint Employer Impact: And businesses of all types are still struggling to determine how the Board’s recent Browning-Ferris decision, with its amorphous, results-driven “standard,” will impact popular business models. Former NLRB Member Marshall Babson took to the New York Times Opinion Pages to criticize “[This] Impractical and Dangerous Ruling.” SHRM notes that the “NLRB’s New Joint Employer Test May Impact OSHA” obligations as well. Finally, this analysis by CIO looks at “How ‘joint employer’ ruling impacts IT outsourcing customers.”