Jump to navigation Jump to search Protected Concerted Activity is a legal term used in labor policy to define employee protection against employer retaliation in the United States.
The catalyst for the request came from the Principal Flutist in the Symphony Protected concerted activity believed that she was being paid less than her male counterparts. The Flutist raised this concern to the Union during her individual contract negotiations with the Symphony, which did not involve the Union.
Although the Union advised the Flutist that they could not assist with her EEOC filing, they subsequently requested copies of the individual overscale contracts from the Symphony.
The ALJ speculated that because the parties were in negotiations, the Union could have used the individual overscale agreement information to propose the inclusion of such language in a future agreement. Even if that was not the goal, however, the ALJ asserted that the Union was investigating potential sex discrimination, which is a well-established mandatory subject of bargaining.
What remains to be seen is how far a union will go to protect its female members from sex discrimination and how much information the NLRB will require an employer to provide on non-mandatory subjects of bargaining where a union claims its request relates to investigating possible discrimination.
Although many employers may think they can let their guard down a little bit when it comes to the NLRB under the Trump Administration, history suggests otherwise. This is almost certainly true, but employers should keep in mind that appeals to NLRB intervention are not the only ways for unions to create incredible headaches for employers.
Such attacks are multi-pronged and often long-running. Indeed, unions have devoted millions of dollars and multiple years to individual corporate campaigns, and such campaigns have become more sophisticated and coordinated over the years.
The typical union philosophy in launching such a campaign is to cost an employer so much time and money and cause it so much disruption that it ultimately gives in to what the union wants. Corporate campaigns are widely known as a means of organizing workers by disorganizing companies.
Common tactics unions employ in corporate campaigns include: Given the growing presence of Millennials in the workforce, a group that broadly speaking considers itself both technologically savvy and socially conscious, unions are likely to have no shortage of candidates for such positions.
What Employers Can Do Companies of all sizes, in all locations, and in all industries are potentially vulnerable to corporate campaigns. Of course, the larger the company, the more attractive that company may be as a target, as more employees equals more potential revenue from union dues.
In reality, however, almost no relatively large company is safe from such an attack. Given the power of the internet and the ubiquity of social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram, the speed with which unions can launch and carry out sophisticated and well-coordinated corporate campaigns is nothing short of astounding.
Employers would be well-advised to proactively develop strategies aimed at reducing their vulnerability to such campaigns and quickly and effectively responding to such campaigns. Such strategies could include: Conducting OSHA, wage and hour, and antitrust compliance audits Engaging in positive employee relations training and messaging Conducting up-to-date anti-harassment training Evaluating pay equity within the company Creating an effective internal and external communication system in relation to potential and actual union activity Assembling a dedicated team of inside or outside counsel to respond to filings at the NLRB, such as unfair labor practice charges and representation petitions Seyfarth lawyers have extensive experience devising and implementing strategies designed to avoid and effectively respond to corporate campaigns.
To further complicate matters, the Obama Board sometimes found policies with the same objective civility in the workplace to be lawful. The byzantine nature of these decisions made it nearly impossible for an employer to maintain policies regarding employee conduct with any assurance that the Board would find the policies to be lawful.
Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because i the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, and thus no balancing of employee rights versus employer justification is warranted; or ii the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.
Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications. Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.
The Board gave as an example under Category 3 a policy prohibiting employees from discussing wages or other working conditions. To be sure, there will be some confusion and issues to be addressed as the newly-announced categories are applied to employee handbook policies, but what is certain is that employers can once again lawfully require that employees maintain a reasonable level of civility in the workplace.
It previews many anticipated developments during the Trump Administration. Our blog is exploring a different aspect of the memo each day during the first three weeks of December.
In Manhattan Beer, the Obama Board majority ruled that a beer distributor violated the NLRA by terminating a unionized employee for refusing to take a drug test without first providing him with a reasonable opportunity to consult in person with an authorized union representative, despite the fact that the employee was able to consult with a union representative via telephone.
In April and August of this year, the Second and the Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals affirmed two Board rulings and held that under certain circumstances even extremely vulgar or racially bigoted speech fall within the protections of the NLRA. In Memorandum GCthe new General Counsel has signaled his interest in reconsidering the analysis in these cases, and narrowing the outer boundaries of speech protections afforded by the Act.
Importantly, this is an opportunity for the Trump Board to change direction regarding the application of the Atlantic Steel factors to social media cases.under the national labor relations act The NLRA guarantees the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity.
A materially adverse action does not violate the EEO laws unless there is a causal connection between the action and the protected activity. 1. Causation Standards. Unlawful retaliation is established when a causal connection is established between a materially adverse action and .
Protected Concerted Activity is a legal term used in labor policy to define employee protection against employer retaliation in the United States. It is a legal principle under the .
Protected Concerted Activity is a legal term used in labor policy to define employee protection against employer retaliation in the United States. It is a legal principle under the . Posted in Concerted Activity, NLRB, Protected Concerted Activity, Uncategorized, Unfair Labor Practices By: Kaitlyn F.
Whiteside, Esq. Seyfarth Synopsis: On Friday, December 1, , newly appointed NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued a memo containing a broad overview of his initial agenda as General Counsel.
Protected concerted activity is an activity that an employee or employees participate in to try to improve working conditions. Two or more employees can work together to improve these conditions.