Obama Labor Board’s Activism Shadowed by Challenge to Its … · 2020-01-13 · Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 37 (Dec. 14, 2012). Such decisions may suggest that

S t r a t e g i e sPREVENTIVE

EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, BENEFITS AND IMMIGRATION LAW FOR EMPLOYERSV

ol

um

e 3

6,

Nu

mb

er 1

|

Fir

st Q

ua

rt

er 2

01

3

FEATURE COVERAGE 1 - 6

DEVELOPING LAW OF THE WORKPLACE 7

JACKSON LEWIS NEWS 8 www.jacksonlewis.com

®

Obama Labor Board’s Activism Shadowed by Challenge to Its AuthorityControversy surrounding the National Labor Relations Board is growing. Held to lack a quorum for doing business by at least one federal appeals court, the NLRB under the Obama Administration already has cast a wide

net in issuing decisions and making rules favoring employees and unions. All employers – including those that never dealt with unions – are at risk of running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act under new NLRB interpretations on social media postings. Newly organized employers and other employers with established collective relationships will face challenges under recent agency decisions.

NLRB Recess Appointments in Question: Does the Board Have a Quorum?A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has cast into doubt the validity of many recent National Labor Relations Board decisions and other actions in which Board members, who are recess appointees, participated. The three-judge panel said President Barack Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the Board – current members Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, and former member Terence Flynn – because the U.S. Senate officially was still in session at the time and therefore the appointments were not made during “the recess” that takes place between sessions, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Noel Canning v. NLRB, Nos. 12-1115 and 12-1153 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013).

Under the D.C. Circuit’s determination, Labor Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce is the only validly nominated and confirmed member, which means the Board would lack the three-member quorum required by statute to do business. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling is especially troublesome because the National Labor Relations Act allows parties to seek review of any final Labor Board order in that appellate court. Similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals. On March 12, the Board announced that it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the controversy by a petition for certiorari to be filed by April 25, 2013. Until the question is resolved, the Board operates under a shadow of uncertainty.

For details, go to Recess Appointments at NLRB Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules at www.jacksonlewis.com, and NLRB To Seek Supreme Court Review in Noel Canning v. NLRB.

2

EDITORIAL BOARD Roger S. Kaplan Mei Fung So Margaret R. Bryant This bulletin is published for clients of the firm to inform them of labor and employment devel-

opments. Space limitations prevent exhaustive treatment of matters highlighted. We will be pleased to provide additional details upon request and discuss with clients the effect

of these matters on their specific situations. | Copyright: © 2013 Jackson Lewis llp Reproduction in whole or in part by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the

advance written permission of Jackson Lewis. | This Bulletin may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013 Jackson Lewis llp

Q What are some of the most common labor law issues your clients have dealt with in the past several years?

A (MR. ROSEN) Following the 2012 elections, we have a good sense of what is likely to happen in 2013 and beyond.

Critical labor law issues for employers are playing out at the National Labor Relations Board and in the courts. The President’s appointments to the NLRB, currently consisting of three Democrats – there are two vacancies – already have propelled Board activity in favor of unions and

SIGN UP

for Jackson Lewis E-Alerts

Register online at www.jacksonlewis.com, click on the Sign-Up link at the top of the page.

Seasoned labor partners PhiliP B. Rosen and PatRick l. VaccaRo , who co-chair Labor and Preventive Practices, share their insights on today’s labor law challenges and what employers may expect in this dynamic area of workplace law in 2013 and beyond.

Jackson Lewis provides strategic legal advice and representation to employers – whether they are fully unionized, partially unionized or entirely non-union – from supervisory training to comprehensive labor relations programs. Labor and Preventive Practices attorneys have represented clients in thousands of matters before arbitrators, mediators, the National Labor Relations Board, state labor boards, government agencies, and state and federal courts, and in collective bargaining, on a range of issues and challenges, including:

n national and international corporate campaigns;

n neutrality/card check agreements;

n corporate transactions (e.g., purchase/sales, reductions and reorganizations);

n protected concerted activity (including social media and class action waivers);

n contract negotiations and administration;

n grievance and arbitration proceedings;

n unfair labor practices;

n economic activity pressures (e.g., lawsuits, shareholder actions, picketing , bannering and hand billing);

n public appeals (e.g., including media and government relations campaigns, and use of social media sites);

n work slowdowns and stoppages; and

n pre- and post-hire employee relations “best practice” issues.

Leveraging the Firm’s geographic and substantive reach to clients’ advantage, Labor and Preventive Practices continues to increase client services and preventive strategies based on new developments. The Firm’s array of talent and experience also provides interdisciplinary strategic advice and practical guidance across the business spectrum.

F O C U S O N

L A B O R A N D P R E V E N T I V E P R A C T I C E S

The President’s

appointments to the

NLRB have tilted

agency actions

in favor of unions

and employees.

potlighting the NLRB controversy, this issue of Preventive Strategies takes a closer look at one of the Firm’s longest established and active

practice areas, Labor and Preventive Practices. S

Jackson Lewis llp PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013

3employees – and will continue to do so for at least the next four years.

While the National Labor Relations Act always has applied to employees regardless of union representation, the Board’s decisions and initiatives since 2008 have broadened the law’s reach significantly. Every prudent employer needs to recognize the NLRA’s implications for workplace policies and actions.

All employers are impacted by the Board’s decisions and advice memoranda applying the provisions of the NLRA to protected concerted activity. The Board has received extensive attention for its pronouncements on social media, such as its decision that an employer violated the NLRA by firing five employees for posting Facebook comments in response to a co-worker’s criticism of their job performance. Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 37 (Dec. 14, 2012). Such decisions may suggest that virtually any discussion among co-workers pertaining to workplace matters could be considered “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA, regardless of whether it is intended to initiate or prepare for group action in the interest of employees.

The Labor Board has issued numerous “cutting edge” decisions on employment policies and practices dealing with company confidential and proprietary information, “at will” handbook receipts and other disclaimers, employee statements to the press, use of social media on and off the job, and disclosures during internal workplace conduct investigations. Emboldened by this worker-friendly activism, terminated employees are bringing more NLRB charges, and the Board regularly is reviewing employee handbooks during unfair labor practice investigations.

In one instance, the Board found some commonly used employment-at-will disclaimers to be unlawful. In another, the Board dealt with class action waivers, holding that “employers may not compel employees to waive their NLRA right collectively to pursue litigation of employment claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial.” The arbitration agreement in question did just that, according to the Board in its ruling in D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012), petition for review pending (No. 12-60031, 5th Cir).

See NLRA Handbook Disclaimers May Be Effective After All, Board’s General Counsel Suggests and Mandatory “No-Class Action” Arbitration Waivers Interfere with Employee Rights, NLRB Rules.

The Labor Board’s aggressive agenda has not been without consequence to the agency. Employers have pushed back. The ques-tion has arisen whether the Administration has overreached by making recess appoint-ments to the Board that violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Noel Canning v. NLRB decided that the recess appointments of two of the current members were unconstitutional. The NLRB said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other, similar challenges are pending in the federal courts. The uncertainty over the appointments makes it critical for all employers to understand what the challenges, if successful, are likely to mean for recent Board actions, such as the NLRA notice posting requirement and the “accelerated election” rules (discussed later in this issue).

The Board continues to operate despite the question of whether it has a valid quorum. Many of its recent decisions may not be enforceable, at least in the D.C. Circuit where employers may choose to appeal unfavorable Board orders. As we said, the Board is seeking a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the validity of the recess appointments. Jackson Lewis attorneys are representing clients at the NLRB and in the courts in representation and unfair labor practice cases where there is an issue of the Board’s authority to act. We will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Employers with union-free or partially unionized workplaces still have to contend with the labor movement’s corporate cam-paigns to pressure the employer (through the media, political officeholders, share-holders, international affiliates, customers, employees, financial lenders, wage-hour lawsuits, government regulators and others) into accepting a union. For multinational employers, in particular, International Labor Organization conventions, differing country laws, and liberal attitudes toward unioniza-tion where they operate carry the potential for a cross-borders corporate campaign.

An issue often associated with corporate

The Labor Board’s

aggressive agenda

has not been without

consequence to

the agency.

PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013 Jackson Lewis llp

4

For unionized

employers,

a key consideration

has been how best

to negotiate over

withdrawal

liability caused

by underfunded

pension plans.

campaigns is card check/neutrality. This arises where an employer is pressured to relinquish its rights to advocate that employees remain union-free and forego their right to an NLRB secret ballot election. An employer’s decision to accede to card check/neutrality eases the way for a union to become the employees’ representative without a Board election.

Our clients also have faced wage-hour lawsuits, workplace safety investigations and other litigation assisted by organizations supported by the labor movement or other advocacy groups. Charges of Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state wage-hour violations (e.g., employee misclassifications, timekeeping anomalies, or meal and rest breaks violations) are brought as collective actions, sometimes joining hundreds or thou-sands of employees.

Q What labor law issues have been the most troublesome for unionized employers in particular?

A (MR. VACCARO) In the wake of the recession, some unionized employers have dealt with corporate restructuring issues, such as successor employer obligations, mergers and acquisitions, and reductions in force. One key consideration for unionized employers has been how best to negotiate over withdrawal liability caused by underfunded pension plans. Another key issue involves the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which mandates certain health care plan coverage for both unionized and non-union workers.

Several recent Board decisions pertain specifically to unionized employers. For example, three decisions from late 2012 and early 2013 favor unions and employees by:

(1) continuing the employer’s obligation to deduct union dues after the expiration of the union contract;

(2) impeding a unionized employer’s ability to impose discipline unilaterally on a bargaining unit employee when there is

Neutrality Agreement May Get Supreme Court Scrutiny as Violating Labor Law

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether a neutrality agreement between a Florida greyhound track and a union improperly delivered a “thing of value” to the union in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act. The agreement provided the union access to non-public work areas of the employer’s property, confidential information about the employees, including their addresses, and a commitment by the employer to remain neutral in any union organizing efforts. The agreement also provided that the union would support a local ballot initiative regarding casino gaming favored by the employer and, once recognized by the employer, would refrain from striking. Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 667 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012).

An employee challenged the agreement as a violation of Section 302 of the LMRA because it improperly “delivered” or “paid” a “thing of value” to the union. The LMRA makes it unlawful for an employer to “pay, lend or deliver any money or other thing of value to any labor organization...which seeks to represent... any of the employees of such employer.” 29 U.S.C. 186.

After several rounds of court decisions, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that “organizing assistance can be a thing of value that, if demanded or given as payment, could constitute a violation of Section 302.” By so holding, the court split with rulings by the Third and Fourth Circuits finding neutrality agreements not to violate the LMRA. The Supreme Court has asked the U. S. Solicitor General to file a brief in the case, and if the Court grants certiorari and rules against the union, the effect on unions that rely heavily on neutrality agreements as their preferred method of organizing could be dramatic, compelling them to return to traditional methods of organizing that are more expensive and less likely to be successful.

For details, see Union Neutrality Agreements To Be Scrutinized If Certiorari Granted In Florida Case, at Unions & Labor Law Reform Blog.

5

Jackson Lewis llp PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013

no collective bargaining agreement in effect; and

(3) breaching the confidentiality of employee witness statements given to management.

The first of these decisions reversed a 50-year-old precedent that an employer had no continuing obligation to deduct union dues from employee paychecks after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement containing a dues check-off provision. The second decision hampers newly organized employers where a collectively bargained grievance and arbitration system does not yet exist (as is usually the case while an employer and a union are bargaining a first contract), by requiring the employer to give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain before imposing discipline on an employee. The third decision exposes employee witness statements to union disclosure, absent the employer’s assurance of confidentiality, unless the statement was created specifically in anticipation of “foreseeable litigation.”

Unionized employers face interesting challenges as the Board reconsiders its position on many management rights issues that may affect contract negotiation, administration, and/or the grievance and arbitration process. As union contracts are negotiated, employers therefore must recognize the opportunities to engage in “corrective bargaining” to eliminate ambiguity, and to restore the balance of management rights necessary to reach business goals.

Q How have attorneys in your practice area handled the big issues and how would you evaluate the outcomes from the client’s perspective?

A (MR. ROSEN) Jackson Lewis Labor and Preventive Practices attorneys often advise executives who see opportunities in an expanding global marketplace, but recognize the challenges posed by economic pressures, a pro-active federal government, and competition from international employers with vastly different approaches to labor relations and workforce management.

Generally, clients are interested in “big picture” strategy. We provide concrete recommendations for maximizing business opportunities and creating a positive

workplace while minimizing the risk of litigation, union organizing, unsuccessful negotiations or other workplace problems. Recommendations are geared toward specific situations.

The big issues call for an integrated, strategic and comprehensive labor relations program reflecting the employer’s current labor relations philosophy. We work with clients to advise them on cost-effective approaches, often involving a multi-disci-plinary team that includes key executives, in-house or outside counsel, human resource professionals and others (e.g., public and government relations organizations).

Our attorneys analyze trends to keep clients ahead of the curve with management education and training on developing issues. In addition to in-house, in-person and online management education programs, we provide timely employer communications through email alerts, website updates, webinars, and blog posts. Jackson Lewis attorneys also advocate for management rights through the submission of public comments to proposed rules, such as those implementing Executive Orders of the President and others suggested by the NLRB or Department of Labor.

A (MR. VACCARO) Retaining Jackson Lewis Labor and Preventive Practices attorneys brings 55 years of labor law experience and cre-ativity to management in fully unionized, partially unionized and entirely union-free settings. Not only did we author a major publication in the field, Winning NLRB Elections, but the Firm has more attor-neys on the Labor Relations Institute’s list of “Top One Hundred Labor Lawyers in America” than any other. We also were recommended in three categories in the 2012 edition of The LegaL 500: Labor and Employment Litigation, Labor-Management Relations, and Workplace and Employment Counseling. Moreover, in a survey con-ducted by BTI Consulting Group, the leading provider of strategic research to the legal community, in-house counsel of Fortune 1000 companies recognized Jackson Lewis as “the single highest-ranked firm clients want by their side in employment battles.” According to the survey, our efforts to avoid litigation and our innovative approaches to fees and client communications give Jackson Lewis an edge.

The big issues call for

an integrated, strategic

and comprehensive

labor relations

program that reflects

the employer’s labor

relations philosophy.

6

PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013 Jackson Lewis llp

Q What labor law challenges do you foresee for unionized and non-union employers in the coming year or two?

A (MR. ROSEN) Employers must think three steps ahead to anticipate changes and develop sound approaches to labor relations. In spite of the legal uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s recess appointments, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce has said that the Board will continue to perform its statutory duties and issue decisions.

Court challenges to the notice posting and accelerated elections rules are pending, as are appeals of a number of Board decisions. They include the Specialty Healthcare case, in which Jackson Lewis has filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of a nursing home’s challenge to the new standard for determining bargaining units. If Specialty Healthcare (now called Kindred Health Care) is upheld, long-term care facilities can expect unions to seek units of employees in a single job classification. However, by its own terms, this decision is not limited to the long-term care industry. The Specialty Healthcare decision applies to all industries and will make it easier for unions to win elections and likely will lead to a proliferation of bargaining units, multiple contracts, and job actions by multiple groups of employees.

Other Board initiatives may continue to challenge employers, especially regarding protected concerted activities. Employers should look closely at their policies on social media, class action waivers, and confidentiality of investigations, as well as workplace rules relating to on- and off-duty conduct, employee statements about man-agement and co-workers, solicitation and access, and “chain of command” dispute resolution procedures.

Beyond the NLRB, President Obama may continue a pro-active agenda through Executive Orders and related regulations. In 2009, the President issued a series of Executive Orders that require federal contractors to comply with posting requirements (E.O. 13496), non-displacement of qualified workers under service contracts (E.O. 13495), economy in government contracting (E.O. 13494), and project labor agreements (E.O. 13502). Final rules on E.O.13495, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers

The NLRB’s recent

decisions on protected

concerted activity

are part of a larger

movement at the federal

level to expand the

rights of employees.

Under Service Contracts,” with an effective date of January 18, 2013, require contractors covered by the Service Contract Act to offer employment on a right of first refusal basis to predecessor employees, regardless of whether those employees meet their hiring and screening criteria. This may affect the composition of a contractor’s workforce, its hiring process, and, in cases in which the predecessor’s employees were unionized, its obligation to recognize and bargain with the employees’ labor union.

Unionized and union-free employers must find the right strategy to achieve the balance between legal obligations and management prerogatives. Developing a comprehensive labor relations program includes such steps as alignment of the organization’s business and labor relations strategy, reconsideration of the appropriate labor relations philosophy (e.g., cooperative, management-rights oriented, or best practices), assessment of legal and human resources compliance, review of current handbook policies and practices, and analysis of supervisory status and potential bargaining units.

Q Are there any legal reforms – in the works or being discussed – that you see affecting employers either positively or negatively? A (MR. VACCARO) Given the gridlock in Congress, it is unlikely that any significant labor legislation will be enacted at the federal level in the next few years. Certainly, the challenged Labor Board appointments will have to be resolved, but in the meantime, the Board will continue to operate. Until then, employers should consider preserving their rights in any Board proceedings. In addition, the Board’s decisions on protected concerted activity are part of a larger movement at the federal level to expand the rights of employees.

We are more likely to see labor legislation at the state level, as evidenced by pro-employer and pro-labor initiatives on state ballots in the 2012 elections. We will continue to watch with interest the impact of right-to-work legislation in the union stronghold of Michigan, the limitation on public sector collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, and other state legislative initiatives over the next few years.

“laBoR FRiendly” BoaRd actions May Get cold shouldeR FRoM aPPeals couRts

Jackson Lewis llp PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES | First Quarter 2013

7

R

Two rules

promulgated by

the NLRB are in

a state of limbo

because of challenges

to the agency’s

authority.

“Quickie Elections” Rule

In a challenge to NLRB rulemaking, the federal district court for the District of Columbia twice has ruled that the “expedited election” rule is invalid because the Board lacked a quorum in the final vote to pass it. The rule was rushed to com-pletion at the end of 2011 and was scheduled to take effect in April 2012, but only two Board members actually voted through the electronic case-management system. A quorum consists of at least three participating Board members.

Among other things, the rule would eliminate certain pre-election rights of employees and employers, thus shortening the time before a representation election takes place. Although the Board has appealed the court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has suspended the appeal in light of its decision in the Noel Canning case finding the President’s recess appointments invalid. Given the uncertainty surrounding the recess appointments of two of the three current Board members, further action on the rule by the Board seems unlikely anytime soon.

of the WorkplaceD e v e l o p i n g L a w

For details, go to Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, at www.nlrb.gov.

Notice of NLRA Rights Posting Rule

The NLRB issued its final rule on the “Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act” on August 25, 2011. The notice posting rule that would require that all employ-ers covered by the NLRA conspicuously post a notice informing employees of their right to organize and engage in other protected activities and provide contact information for the NLRB. The rule has been challenged in several jurisdic-tions and currently is not in effect. An injunction preventing the Labor Board from implementing the rule is in force pending the outcome of two separate appeals in two different federal courts. In the two cases, one court previously found the Board had the authority to promulgate the rule, and the other found it did not.

For details, go to Federal Court Panel Hears Arguments on NLRB Workers’ Rights Posting Requirement at www.jacksonlewis.com.

ecent Labor Board decisions expanding the scope of employees’ protected concerted activity rights, the expedited election rule (if upheld or reissued by the NLRB), bargaining

unit composition changes, and the Notice of Employee Rights posting requirement (if upheld), are increasing the pressure on employers in 2013 and beyond.

Federal Contractors Prepare for Effects of Sequestration

After the sequestration of federal agency funding took effect on March 1, employers with federal con-tracts or grants are planning for the workplace impact, which may include reductions in force, furloughs, and reduced hours. Such actions implicate a number of employment and labor law concerns, including compliance issues with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and wage and hour laws, the impact on benefits and immigration status, and labor union and collective bargaining agreement issues. A plan for effective communications with employees on these matters is equally important for employers.

For a discussion of legal issues raised by sequestration’s effect on employment, go to Implications of Sequestration on Federal Contractors.

www.jacksonlewis.com

Albany, NY Albuquerque, NM Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Birmingham, AL Boston, MA Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Dallas, TX Denver, CO Detroit, MI Greenville, SC Grand Rapids, MI Hartford, CT Houston TX Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville, FL

Las Vegas, NV Long Island, NY Los Angeles, CA Memphis, TN Miami, FL Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Morristown, NJ Napa, CA New Orleans, LA New York, NY Norfolk, VA Omaha, NE Orange County, CA Orlando, FL Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA Portland, OR Portsmouth, NH Providence, RI Raleigh-Durham, NC Richmond, VA Sacramento, CA San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Juan, Puerto Rico Seattle, WA St. Louis, MO Stamford, CT Tampa, FL Washington DC Region White Plains, NY

n n Firm’s Growth Continues in 2013 with Three New Offices n n

JLNews Header to Come

Jackson Lewis News

Jackson Lewis is pleased to announce the opening of three new regional offices and its first outside the United States. We welcome and congratulate all the new partners, associates, and of counsel to the Firm.

Grand Rapids, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . t iMothy J . Ryan

San Juan, Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . saRa e. colón-aceVedo

Tampa, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BaRnett Q. BRooks

Samantha Abeysekera (New York City)

Jeff Barnes (Houston)

Chad Bernard (Los Angeles)

Douglas Bria (San Francisco)

Christopher Campbell (Boston)

Lynn Clements (Baltimore)

Stephen Coleman (Phoenix)

Rebecca Davis (Cincinnati)

V. John Ella (Minneapolis)

Michael Frankel (White Plains)

Talya Friedman (Los Angeles)

Jason Gavejian (Morristown)

Susan Groff (Los Angeles)

Susanne Kantor (White Plains)

Monica Khetarpal (Chicago)

Benjamin Kim (Los Angeles)

Patricia Krewson (Cleveland)

Ryan Lessmann (Denver)

Carla Macaluso (Morristown)

Lillian Moon (Orlando)

Stephanie Peet (Philadelphia)

Jill Poole (Omaha)

John Porta (Long Island)

Sarine Sahatjian (Los Angeles)

Jennifer Santa Maria (San Diego)

Jennifer Seda (Denver)

Allison Serafin (Raleigh-Durham)

Sherry Swieca (Los Angeles)

Jeffrey Toppel (Phoenix)

Dana Weisbrod (New York City)

Matthew Woodard (White Plains)

TerRance Woodard (Miami)

Jason Zoldessy (New York City)

n n Congratulations to New Jackson Lewis Partners Class of 2013 n n

UNIONS HAVE GAINED NEW LEVERAGE in organizing largely due to the National Labor Relations Board attempts to change the rules and reverse long-standing precedent.

In the new and unique workshop, Remaining Union Free, Jackson Lewis attorneys will take participants through a mock union organizing drive designed to challenge even the most experienced labor professionals.

le a R n h o w t o :

n collaborate effectively over labor issues within your organization

n make difficult decisions in a time-condensed manner while contemplating both the practical and legal implications

n minimize exposure to unfair labor practice charges that can hinder your company’s efforts

For in-house counsel, managers, labor relations and human resource directors, senior executives and business owners, program participants will discuss the strategies and tools to determine how to respond effectively and aggressively to labor organizing.

Las Vegas ChicagoApril 10-11 May 7-8

For details and to register, go to Remaining Union Free at www.jacksonlewis.com.

Make Your Plans Now to Attend A Counter-Organizing Simulation