Tag Archives: National Labor Relations Board

NLRB Adopts “Contract Coverage” Standard

New Ruling Makes It Easier for Employers to Introduce Workplace Changes During Term of Collective Bargaining Agreement

 

On September 10, 2019, in MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 28-CA-173726, the National Labor Relations Board adopted a new “unilateral change” rule. The new rule permits employers to make unilateral changes in the workplace during the term of a collective bargaining agreement, without first bargaining with the union representing its employees,… More

NLRB Overturns Obama-Era Independent Contractor Test

On January 25, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision revising the test for independent contractor status under federal labor law. In SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., the Board ruled that the test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) should focus on the degree of “entrepreneurial opportunity” available to the worker, rather than the worker’s economic dependency on those they serve or the degree of control exercised over the work.… More

NLRB General Counsel Adopts Less Restrictive Policy on Employee Handbook Rules

On June 6, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel issued a guidance on the agency’s new position on employee handbook rules. Reflecting recent changes in Board law, the guidance issued by NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb indicates that his office has abandoned the broad prohibition on certain workplace rules adopted by his predecessor during the Obama administration and, more broadly, signals that the new General Counsel will take a more employer-friendly approach in interpreting federal labor law.… More

NLRB Vacates Hy-Brand Joint Employment Liability Standard Because of Board Member Conflict

On February 26, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board vacated its recent ruling in the Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Inc. case that had set a new standard for determining joint employer status. The action was not for substantive reasons. Instead, it was due solely to a conflict that arose because one of the Board members who decided the case, William Emanuel, had previously worked for a law firm that had represented a party in the case.… More