An administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board recently joined the growing chorus of federal and state agencies condemning the use of restrictive covenants. The decision represents a notable shift in the Board’s view of noncompete and, in particular, employee nonsolicitation covenants. Employers should take particular care to review the language of nonsolicitation agreements with covered employees to ensure that they are not likely to be construed to chill employees’ — and former employees’ — engagement in protected activity. You can learn more in this alert by Matthew Fontana, Erik Mosvick, Avery Bennett and David J. Woolf.
Faegre Drinker’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Earlier this year, we predicted that litigation focusing on labor and management relations would be an evolving area of employment law to watch in 2023. And the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has not disappointed. From targeting overbroad non-compete agreements to adopting a new standard for assessing the “lawfulness” of work rules, the NLRB stayed busy this past summer. And it hasn’t slowed down. In this recent example, the NLRB ordered an expedited trial in a case about union organizing. Union organizing ends in termination In the spring of 2023, several Shangri-La employees attempted to organize and form a union. Over the summer, employees voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 655 and seek a union contract. During the campaign, several employees were allegedly: Harassed by management Threatened with suspension and/or termination, and Terminated. The union filed labor board charges and brought the case to the NLRB. In the NLRB’s view, the alleged conduct violated labor law by fighting employees’ efforts to form a union. It ordered an expedited trial, according to UFCW Local 655 President David Cook. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees who exercise their right to organize, form or join a labor organization. Attempting to reach an eleventh-hour settlement, the employer offered to reinstate the workers and provide back pay. Five accepted reinstatement and the other five who declined the job offer received an additional $5,000 payment on top of the back pay. All told, the employer paid out $145,000 to settle the case. Under the settlement, the employer must: Allow employees to discuss union organizing on company property. Not remove union organizers from the facility. Rescind portions of its handbook and nondisclosure agreement. Read a remedial notice to employees Email the remedial notice to all current employees. Attend an NLRB-conducted training for managers and supervisors on employee rights under the NLRA. hashtag #xntricservices #itstaffing #technicalrecruitment #qualityservices
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Region 32-Oakland Secures Settlement Requiring Lucid to Rescind Unlawful Severance Agreement Language March 20, 2024 On March 5, 2024, Region 32-Oakland Regional Director Valerie Hardy-Mahoney approved an agreement settling a case against Lucid Group, Inc. (Employer), an electric vehicle manufacturer, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by its former employees who had been laid off under a May 2023 reduction in force. The unfair labor practice charge filed in August 2023 alleged that the Employer’s severance agreement contained unlawful provisions that would prevent or discourage employees from exercising their right to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. In the settlement agreement, the Employer agreed to revise its severance agreement to remove an overbroad confidentiality provision, to not seek enforcement of the provision in the severance agreements entered into by the charging parties, and to post a notice of employee rights at its Newark, CA facility and email it to all current employees and those who were employed by the Employer at the Newark Facility and who were part of the reduction in force. “As General Counsel Abruzzo has explained, unlawful severance agreement provisions like these interfere with employees’ exercising their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,” said Region 32 Regional Director Valerie Hardy-Mahoney. “I am proud of our staff for their efforts in protecting employee rights and achieving this settlement.” In February 2023, the NLRB issued a decision in McLaren Macomb returning to longstanding precedent holding that employers may not offer employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The decision involved severance agreements offered to furloughed employees that prohibited them from making statements that could disparage the employer and from disclosing the terms of the agreement itself. https://lnkd.in/gVNkU7BB
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Nationally quoted labor and employment, business and sports attorney. | Founder of MLE Law, a labor and employment, sports and business law firm. | Host of The Quarter Four Podcast, a business and sports podcast.
Last year, the National Labor Relations Board made news for a series of employee-friendly pronouncements (these came from the NLRB’s General Counsel) and rulings. One of the major rulings came from a case called McLaren Macomb, where the NLRB held that an employer illegally maintained a separation agreement that barred workers from talking about its terms or making statements "which could disparage or harm the image of" the company. Employers often forget that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) applies to all private sector employers, regardless of whether the employer’s workforce is unionized. Thus, the NLRB’s ruling about non-management employee severance agreements applies to unionized and non-unionized workforces. Media personality Steven Crowder found this out when he was hit with an unfair labor practice charge alleging that he’s trying to use an illegal separation agreement in a lawsuit to stop a former producer from speaking out against him. A copy of the charge is attached. Apparently, Crowder and his former producer entered into a separation agreement that contained a very broad non-disparagement provision. Crowder recently sued the former producer seeking to enforce the non-disparagement clause. In response, the former producer went to the NLRB and filed the attached charge claiming, among other things, that the broad non-disparagement provision is unlawful under the NLRB’s recent McLaren Macomb decision, i.e. it chills the former producer’s rights under the NLRA. This case illustrates how a private, non-unionized employer can end up in the cross hairs of the NLRB. We hear so much about workers filing “charges of discrimination” with the EEOC. Workers can also file charges with the NLRB. Given the NLRB’s recent flurry of employee-friendly decisions, the media coverage of those decisions, and the relative ease of access to information, employers need to be mindful of the NLRB and the NLRA. Workers are better informed about their ability to go to the NLRB and file an unfair labor practice charge. Employers should be mindful of this going forward as they craft severance agreements and address workplace issues in general. #law #hr
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
On September 6, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a law that prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings. What are your thoughts on employers requiring employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings? What do you think about this legislation? Read more>> https://rfr.bz/l9n912o #HR #HRProfessional #HRCommunity
New York State Bans Employers from Holding Mandatory “Captive Audience” Meetings
https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
On September 6, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a law that prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings. What are your thoughts on employers requiring employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings? What do you think about this legislation? Read more>> https://rfr.bz/l9n912o #HR #HRProfessional #HRCommunity
New York State Bans Employers from Holding Mandatory “Captive Audience” Meetings
https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
At the 2024 SHRM conference, a Principal at Jackson Lewis, discussed recent legal updates affecting California employers. Topics included PAGA reforms, increased wage theft enforcement, and compliance challenges with remote and hybrid work arrangements. This article provides a nice summary of the discussion for those HR professionals who are challenged with staying on top of compliance for California, where employment litigation has been on the rise. #HR #HumanResource #HRCompliance #CaliforniaLaw #EmploymentLaw #PAGAReform #RemoteWork
Legal Expert at Human Resources Conference Breaks Down Hot Topics in California
tax.thomsonreuters.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The National Labor Relations Board has options as it decides how to move forward with revising joint employer regulations under the National Labor Relations Act, according to attorneys who spoke to HR Dive. (Ryan Golden) #humanresources #hr #nlrb #jointemployer
Judge’s decision not the end for NLRB’s joint employer efforts, attorneys say
hrdive.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Navigating the complexities of employment termination in Belarus? Our latest article dives into "Dismissal by Agreement of the Parties," a mutually beneficial method for ending employment relationships. From understanding the basic concept to detailed insights on legal considerations, employee rights, and employer obligations, this guide covers it all. Explore the full article to stay informed and ensure smooth transitions in your workplace. https://lnkd.in/dwTGTV5f #EmploymentLaw #HR #Dismissal #ITBelarus
Dismissal by Agreement of the Parties | Spex.by
https://spex.by/eng
To view or add a comment, sign in