Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: NLRA

A New Jersey Federal Court Holds that the Stored Communications Act Applies to “Wall Posts” on Facebook

by

Posted in Privacy and Data Security

On September 4, 2013

The Federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“SCA”), makes it unlawful to, among other things, “intentionally access[] without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided.” Violators are subject to imprisonment and fines, and the statute expressly authorizes a civil action for damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. A federal court in New Jersey has now held that the statute may apply to those who access information posted by a Facebook account holder on his or her Facebook “wall.” The defendant-employer in the case, Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (“MONOC”), was able to avoid liability under the SCA because the plaintiff could not establish that her employer violated the “without authorization” component of the statute. Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. But the case puts employers on notice that they must tread carefully in this area.

NLRB Judge Finds Class Waiver Provision in Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Violates NLRA

by

Posted in Labor

On August 29, 2013

Last week, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) found that a Missouri cellphone retailer violated the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) by requiring, as a condition of employment, its sales representative employees to enter into arbitration agreements mandating that all employment disputes be subject to individual arbitration. In doing so, the ALJ rejected the employer’s argument that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), supported enforcement of the arbitration agreement. In American Express Co., the Court held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), even when the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim is prohibitively expensive.

NLRB Has Five Board Members for First Time in a Decade

by

Posted in Labor

On August 14, 2013

On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board announced that the Senate has filled all five of its Board Member seats for the first time since August 21, 2003. Moving forward, this ends the debate as to whether the Board has the constitutional authority to take action, such as issuing decisions, so long as three of these Senate-confirmed members are present when the Board takes action.

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether President’s Purported “Recess” Appointments are Constitutional

by

Posted in Labor

On June 24, 2013

As predicted, the Supreme Court of the United States announced today that it will address the constitutionality of President Obama’s purported “recess” appointments of Members to the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court’s decision, which could invalidate hundreds of Board decisions made during the past two years, is expected by July 2014.

Third Circuit Deems NLRB “Recess Appointments” Unconstitutional

by

Posted in Labor

On May 22, 2013

On May 16, 2013, in NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit in holding that the Recess Appointment Clause of the Constitution allows the President to make “recess appointments” (that is, without the advice and consent of the Senate) only when the Senate is on a formal intersession recess, as opposed to an intra-session break. Both the Third Circuit’s decision and the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Canning v. NLRB (as elaborated upon in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. NLRB) arise from actions taken by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) some of whose members had been appointed during an intra-session break. To summarize: (1) at least three Board members must participate in a Board decision; (2) according to these courts, the Board has not had three validly-appointed Members since August 27, 2011; and (3) although the NLRB has had four sitting Members between April 5, 2010 and August 27, 2011, it has issued some three-Member decisions during this time wherein one decision-maker, Craig Becker, was arguably unconstitutionally-appointed, rendering those decisions invalid. Potentially hundreds of decisions by the Board over the past three years are at risk of being declared invalid.

‘Required’ Union Poster Unlawful According to D.C. Circuit

by

Posted in Labor

On May 13, 2013

On May 7, 2013, in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. NLRB, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that a rule implemented by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) requiring most private sector employers to post a notice about workers’ rights to unionize was invalid. As previously reported, the Board issued the rule almost two years ago, and has repeatedly postponed its effective date pending the outcome of legal challenges to the rule by business groups.

NLRB to Ask Supreme Court if Board Members Were Lawfully Appointed

by

Posted in Labor

On March 14, 2013

Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) announced it will petition the United States Supreme Court to review Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013). As previously reported, in Canning the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that three appointments of officers to the NLRB by President Obama were unconstitutional because they lacked the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate and were not authorized by the Constitution’s so-called Recess Appointments Clause.

A Friendly Reminder that the NLRB Workplace Posting Requirement Has Been Postponed Indefinitely

by

Posted in Labor

On February 19, 2013

Now well over a year ago, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or “NLRB”) issued a rule requiring most private sector employers to post a notice of employee rights to unionize in their workplaces. The posting requirement was initially to take effect on November 14, 2011. The requirement was postponed, first, until January 31, 2012, and, then again, until April 30, 2012 in light of legal challenges to the rule. Prior to the April 2012 “effective date,” the NLRB announced that it would once again postpone the rule–this time indefinitely “until the legal issues are resolved.” As recently reported, the Board’s great laid plans may go further awry in light of a federal appellate court decision challenging the NLRB’s ability to take any further action until at least one more Board Member is lawfully appointed. For answers to questions regarding the posting, or the Boards’s current state of affairs, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.

NLRA Impact on Non-Union Workplace Policies to Continue into 2013

by

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On February 14, 2013

At the Gibbons Second Annual Employment & Labor Law Conference last week, one panel discussion addressed the National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) recent activity, and offered a list of topics to watch in 2013. This blog post contains the highlights from that discussion as related to employer policies. Of prime interest in our predictions for 2013 is the “recess appointment” issue. Just three weeks ago, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) held that three 2012 recess appointments of officers to the NLRB by President Obama were unconstitutional because they lacked the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate and were not authorized by the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause.

Federal Appellate Court Deems NLRB Appointments Unconstitutional

by

Posted in Labor

On January 31, 2013

In a groundbreaking opinion, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled that three appointments of officers to the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) by President Barrack Obama were unconstitutional because they lacked the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate and were not authorized by the Constitution’s so-called Recess Appointments Clause. As a result, the Court vacated the underlying Board decision that gave rise to the appeal, concluding that the NLRB had no authority to issue the decision because only two of its five members were validly appointed. Thus the Board lacked the quorum necessary for it to take action. The ruling has widespread implications for the NLRB as well as the President’s overall “recess appointment” powers.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories