Showing 13 posts from 2016.
Many business people in the State of Michigan (which is a “state plan vs. federal plan state”) routinely consider a citation from MIOSHA to be a mere nuisance and no more intimidating than a slap on a wrist or a parking ticket. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have had companies cited for workplace fatalities where the Presidents of the companies were actually tried on manslaughter charges. There will be an increased federal push to go after corporate executives in serious workplace fatality injury cases from now on. Being cited for a willful or repeated violation is not at all uncommon. There is a very low standard for being charged with “willful”, i.e. you merely had to know that what you were doing was probably wrong to be charged with a willful violation. Currently the minimum payment penalty for a willful violation is $5,000. It will shortly jump to $8,908, almost a 53 percent increase. Similarly, the maximum penalty for a willful will jump from $70,000 per violation to $124,709 per violation. That should be enough to get any CEO or CFO’s attention. On top of that, it is not unusual for MIOSHA to itemize citations or violations such that if there were three injuries caused by the same situation, they could be cited as three separate $124,000 violations. Read More ›
A Federal court in Texas issued a temporary injunction yesterday against the new Department of Labor (“DOL”) overtime regulations that were set to go into effect December 1st.
The injunction follows court arguments heard on November 16th in a lawsuit brought by 21 states alleging the new DOL’s rules exceeds the DOL’s authority and violated administrative law requirements. The new regulations propose to raise the salary threshold for exempt employees from $23,660 to $47,476 and provide for an automatic increase to the threshold every three years. Read More ›
In a recent case before the National Labor Relations Board where a union organizing drive was agreed to via a formal Election Agreement, the employer lost the organizing election by a vote of 17 to 14. Read More ›
In a stunning decision, a Federal Court denied overtime claims of a salaried union organizer for the Laborers Union in New York City.
The organizer normally would spend his time trying to persuade non-union employees to sign union cards to organize their employer. Part of his duty was running picket lines. And typical with any picket line over the last 20 years, there was an inflatable rat on the picket line maybe 15 to 20 feet tall. This gentleman, Mr. Krupinski, argued that any time he spent setting up, operating or disassembling inflatable rats involved manual labor and therefore was above and beyond his normal exempt status as a paid organizer. The Court threw this out quickly concluding that even though he might have done some manual labor, it did not per se defeat his normal “exempt” status. The Court concluded actually, that by his “interfacing with non-union workers, he engaged in a form of marketing and public outreach, which disqualified him from overtime eligibility." Read More ›
In a consistent pattern of protecting employees' right to speak out on Facebook without consequence, usually against the players, the NLRB in a recent case against Laborers' Union Local 91, held that a union member who went on Facebook to complain about a political endorsement by the union as well as a change in apprenticeship policies was totally protected by the National Labor Relations Act Section 7. Moreover, in that case, after the employee's ranting on Facebook, he was brought up on charges by the head of the union as well as removed from the union's "out of work list" thereby precluding him from getting work. While eventually the International Union ordered the local union to take back its punishment, the NLRB still got involved and ruled that a Facebook posting chiding union's leadership was "protected concerted activity" under the NLRB Act, and the angry union member had a right to make common cause on behalf of his fellow union members.
Finally, a pro-employee decision from the NLRB which slams the union for a change.
In a brand new decision by the National Labor Relations Board the Federal Government ruled that it was unlawful for AT&T to tell its union employees to stop wearing a button on their uniforms that AT&T considered profane and offensive. The buttons said "WTF AT&T." The Union argued that WTF was not profane but actually meant "where is the fairness," even though "where is the fairness" was published in the smallest possible lettering at the bottom of the button. The NLRB ruled the employees could continue to wear these buttons. Read More ›
In another anti-employer ruling last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld an NLRB ruling that had struck down a non-disparagement rule Quicken Loans had in its handbook. The non-disparagement rule said employees could not "publicly criticize, ridicule, disparage or defame the company or its product services policies, directors, officers, shareholders, employees." In short, the company that has been paying employees was asking them to not hurt the hand that feeds them. Read More ›
In a stunning new decision last week by the National Labor Relations Board the anti-business agenda on the current Obama dominated National Labor Relations Board has turned the business model of employers and employees on its head. According to a case called Casino Pauma, it is unlawful for an employer in its employee handbook to have a rule that prohibits employees from conducting "personal business" on company property and "while at work." Does this make any sense? Are employees supposed to be paid by the employer for doing their own business instead of the employer's business? Read More ›
In a new stunning National Labor Relations Board case, the Obama appointed NLRB has gone another step towards removing all rights of businesses to run their business in a profitable and lawful way. In a case called Camelot Terrace, the NLRB enforced by a federal court, held that because in the NLRB's mind the employer "didn't properly" bargain with the union in order to get a fair contract, the employer somehow engaged in "bad faith bargaining." "Bad faith bargaining" has never been an NLRB concept applied to hard bargaining when one or the other side tries as hard as possible, lawfully, to get the best deal for its side of the bargaining table. Read More ›
Many unionized employers participate in what are known as "multi-employer pension plans," also referred to as “Taft-Hartley plans.” These are collectively bargained plans maintained and contributed to by more than one employer, typically within the same or related industries such as manufacturing, trucking and entertainment.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) estimates that approximately 10 million Americans are covered by multi-employer pensions. There has been a good deal of controversy surrounding multi-employer pensions since Congress amended the pension law in December 2014 to allow companies to cut back not only active workers’ plans, but also those of retirees. The PBGC has been warning in recent years that approximately 10 percent of participants are in severely troubled plans. Read More ›
- Affordable Care Act
- Employee Handbook
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Tax & Withholding
- First Amendment
- Health Care Reform
- Labor Relations
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Did you Know?
- OSHA and MIOSHA
- News & Events
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Labor
- Health Insurance Exchange