April 29, 2012
Labor Law Roundup
- On the eve on Monday's start date for the NLRB'S new election rules, the Board has published with the final rules additional comments by Chairman Pearce (concurring) and Member Hayes (dissenting) on the rules' legality.
- Keeping on the new election rules theme, Acting General Counsel Solomon has issued new guidance for the regional offices' implementation of the rules and a set of frequently asked questions for the public.
- The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein writes about airline unions turning the tables on American Airlines, which had go into bankruptcy in part to void its collective-bargaining agreements. The unions responded by negotiating an agreement with US Airways to allow that company to buy American and eventually make the new agreement apply to current American employees.
- Politico discusses labor unions' recent political efforts and asks whether Wisconsin and otherr states' attacks on unions may backfire.
- An update on the law firm workers fired for wearing orange shirts. The firm says the firings were for harassing an office manager to get her to quit. This, of course, might be an admission of an unfair labor practice as trying to get rid of a manager may be protected by the NLRA if it relates to working conditions (will someone who knows labor law please talk to this firm). However, if the allegations of harassment and obscene language are true, that protection would be eliminated.
- The D.C. Circuit upholds the NLRB's most recent New York New York decision. Notably, the panel had two strongly conservative judges in its 3-0 decision (with one concurrence): Henderson, Kavanagh, and Rogers.
- And finally, the Bachelor and Bachelorette shows are being sued for race discrimination. Neither have had a main bachelor/bachelorette of color out of 23 seasons total. You can Download Bachelor complaint.
Hat Tip: Michael Ewing. Michael Lightner, & Dennis Walsh
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Labor Law Roundup:
Posted by: Jon Ross | Apr 30, 2012 6:42:44 AM
Whoops--late night blogging. Thanks for the catch; it's now fixed.
Posted by: Jeff Hirsch | Apr 30, 2012 8:46:56 AM
Member Hayes seem embarrassingly confused about Chevron's Step 1. You are, by definition, out of luck at Step 1 if: (a) you have to concede that the statute "do[es] not explicitly define" the key term at issue; and (b) your own attempt to define that term is based on "legislative history, and prior Board and court interpretations."
Posted by: jason | Apr 30, 2012 8:55:45 AM