California Employee Rights Advocate : California Labor Attorney & Lawyer : Southern CA Employment Law : Los Angeles, Orange County : United Employees Law Group

Typically, arbitration agreements are given to employees to sign when they are hired. These agreements usually state that both parties, employee and employer, agree to resolve their issues out of court should legal issues arise. Often time an arbitration agreement can require that this process take place in a specific jurisdiction/ particular geographic area and can also redefine or restrict some statutory issues.
 

However, there has been much debate over if these statutory restrictions are legal in California. One provision some companies have tried to include in their arbitration agreements was to take away the right for employees to be able to file a class action for any employment issues that might affect them and all of their similarly situated colleagues. This waiver is also commonly referred to as a class action waiver.

A recent ruling by The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), In D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, concluded that as a condition of employment employers cannot require that employees sign arbitration agreements that give up their right to file a class action in any forum.
The NLRB did not apply the United States' Supreme Court's holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. This case had previously set president that class action waivers could be included in consumer arbitration agreements then to workplace arbitration agreements.
 

The NLRB held that: "employers may not compel employees to waive their [National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)] right to collectively pursue litigation of employment claims in all forums, arbital and judicial." The NLRB also stated that "[s]o long as the employer leaves open a judicial forum for class and collective claims, employee's NLRA rights are preserved without requiring the availability of classwide arbitration." Therefore, "[e]mployers remain free to insist that arbitral proceedings be conducted on an individual basis.”
 

Because this topic is being contested by both employees and employers it’s important to seek legal advice from an experienced California class action attorney. Labor law is complex and if you have any questions regarding your employment it is recommended that you contact a California labor law attorney who can help you understand your rights and in many cases will review your situation without charge.

If you have any questions about this article or information on our blog, feel free to call us at:

Long Beach – (562) 256-1047
Los Angeles – (213) 261-0229
San Francisco – (415) 200-0012 or (415) 230-2755
San Diego – (619) 342-1242 or (619) 272-2193

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employers are often concerned with how employees conduct themselves on social networking sites as they are, in a sense, representatives of the company. However employers should be cautious of disciplining employees when it comes to the content of the employee’s posts. More specifically if the post is related to the working conditions the employer should be wary of how they choose to react.

In New York an employee was recently fired from a nonprofit organization for posting a comment about the working conditions. Later an administrative judge ruled this to be a wrongful termination.

Judge Arthur Amchan of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") reviewed statements of five employees of Hispanics United of Buffalo, an entity providing social services to low-income clients. One of the employees created a post on facebook in which she describes the organizations failure to adequately serve their clients. This was followed by other employee’s posts in which they defended their performance. All five employees that participated in this discussion were terminated. According to the employer they were terminated for harassing of the employee of the original post.

Judge Amchan, concluded that these discussions were protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it was regarding communications among employees about their terms and conditions of employment. As such this ruling set new president for the NLRB. The judge then ordered reinstatement and back pay for the five employees.

There have been other cases in which employers have faced adverse decisions regarding comments made on social media sites. In Connecticut an employee called their supervisor a "scumbag" and derogatory term for male genitalia. The NLRB found a violation of Section 8(a) as the basis of the employee's complaint regarding his supervisor was being denied union representation in connection with filing an incident report. An employee can lose protection under the National Labor Relations Act if they engage in outrageously disgraceful conduct during the course of the protected activity, but the NLRB did not find the employee's conduct to rise to this level.

Employees and employers alike are treading in new waters with regards social media and free speech laws on social media sites. It is important to note the decision in the Hispanics United case and National Labor Relations Act protects both organized and non-organized employees, as well as protects the rights of all employees (unionized or not unionized) to discuss and engage in other concerted activity relating to their working conditions.

If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated due to comments made on a social media Site you should contact an experience labor law attorney to review your case.

If you have any questions about this article or our blog, feel free to call us at:

Long Beach – (562) 256-1047
Los Angeles – (213) 261-0229
San Francisco – (415) 200-0012 or (415) 230-2755
San Diego – (619) 342-1242 or (619) 272-2193

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Things got ugly earlier this year when FedEx created a website labeling a proposed labor law change a “Brown Bailout”  for UPS.

“What were they referring to?” you ask.

The alleged bailout isn’t really a bailout at all. Our beloved government did not give any actual money to UPS. However, what is happening is that FedEx is potentially being asked to abide by the same labor laws as UPS. 

It seems that UPS and FedEx should be held to the same labor regulations, wouldn’t you say?

Currently, FedEx Express is organized and characterized as an airline, and thus held to The Railway Labor Act; which requires unions to organize workers in one national group making it more difficult to strike. UPS, on the other hand, is set up as a trucking company; which is governed by the National Labor Relations Act ; which allows workers to organize at the local level.

UPS asserts that they are being held to more costly standard than FedEx when it comes to  labor laws and this creates an unfair advantage for FedEx.

FedEx claims that if this legislation passes they will be unable to purchase 30 more Boeing 777 freighters; a contract totaling $7.7 billion. Feel free to do your own economic projections. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months. Thus far I have not been able to locate any comments from long time union supporter and current Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.  I would be very interested to hear what she has to say. Please feel free to send me any of her commentary on the matter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks