Susan M. Webman

Entries authored by Susan M. Webman

NLRB Suspends Election Process Changes After Court Decision

Because of Monday’s court decision favoring the Chamber of Commerce in its challenge to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s new election rules, the NLRB has “temporarily suspended” the rules and withdrawn its instructions on the implementation of these representation case process changes that were effective on April 30. (link).   See U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 11-cv-2282 (D.D.C. May 14, 2012).

Continue Reading

Misclassification of Nonexempt Employees Leads to Nearly $5.3 Million in Damages

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced on May 1, 2012, that in accordance with a settlement agreement, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has agreed to pay $4,828,442 in back wages and damages to more than 4,500 employees nationwide and $463,815 in civil money penalties for misclassifying employees and associated violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage and hour law.

Continue Reading

NLRB Issues Guidance Memo on New Election Rules

Last December, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) postponed the effective date for the regulations on its new election process to April 30, 2012. After surviving legal and Congressional challenges, the regulations will go into effect today. In fact, just last week NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a guidance memorandum outlining how regional offices will implement these new regulations.

Continue Reading

DOL Extends Comment Period for Proposed FMLA Rule

On February 15, the Department of Labor (DOL) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement statutory amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that expand military family leave provisions and incorporate a special eligibility provision for airline flight crew employees.  On April 12, only four days in advance of the April 16 due date for submitting comments on its proposed rule, the  Department of Labor announced that it is extending the due date to allow for two more weeks. Comments will now be due on April 30, 2012.

 

New Obligations for Veteran Employment

In part because of reinvigorated focus from Congress and the executive branch, in part because of employers reaching out to hire veterans, employ­ment of veterans has improved over the past year. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from February 2011 to February 2012, the unemployment rate for veterans 18 and older decreased from 9.2% to 7.0%, lower now than the unemployment rate for nonveterans.

Continue Reading

DOL Proposes New FMLA Regulations for Military Leave

The US Department of Labor on January 30 released a notice of proposed regulations (NPRM) to implement amendments to the military leave provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The statutory amendments extended the availability of FMLA leave to family members of members of the Regular Armed Forces for qualifying exigencies due to the servicemember’s deployment; define the deployments covered by the new regulations; and extend FMLA military caregiver leave to family members of certain veterans with serious injuries or illnesses. The proposed regulations also include changes concerning the calculation of leave and reorganize and make technical changes to the current regulations covering military FMLA. This NPRM also proposes to amend the regulations to implement the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act, which established new FMLA leave eligibility requirements for airline flight crewmembers and flight attendants. The Department has indicated that comments will be due to DOL on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.

The NLRB and Social Media, Again

Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon released his second report describing 14 social media cases, all fact-specific, that his office has reviewed. Half cover questions about employer social media policies. Five of those policies were found to be unlawfully broad, one was lawful, and one was found to be lawful after it was revised.

Continue Reading

NLRB Postpones Mandatory Posting Deadline to April 30

On December 30, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will publish in the Federal Register that it is postponing its requirement that employers subject to NLRB jurisdiction post a notice informing its employees of their rights under federal labor law. It first announced this decision on December 23. This delay, until April 30, 2012, is the second time the NLRB has changed the rule’s effective date. The August 30 rule required the posting in November. The NLRB first extended the effective date to January 31, stating that additional time was needed “in order to allow for enhanced education and outreach to employers.” This extension is due to lawsuits questioning the legitimacy of the NLRB regulation.

Continue Reading

New veterans law offers tax credits to employers

 

Today, the President acted quickly to sign into law the VOW_ to_ Hire_ Heroes_ Act_of_ 2011.pdf. In one of the few displays of both bipartisan and bicameral actions in recent times, Congress passed the legislation intended to assist unemployed veterans find employment. In a symbolic vote on November 10, the day before Veterans Day, the Senate unanimously passed its bill (95-0), which was based upon the House-passed Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act.  The House followed quickly to pass that bill on November 16.

 

The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in its the October 2011 report, showed that the overall jobless rate for veterans, at 7.7%, was lower than the national rate of 9%, but for those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rate was much higher--12.1%.  Some 2/3 of these veterans are under age 35. Breaking the figures down further, Gulf War era II veterans, i.e., those who served since September 2001, who were current or past members of the National Guard or Reserve, suffered a worse unemployment rate in July, of 14%. This was still better than young, male veterans (ages 18-24), who had an unemployment rate of 21.9% in 2010.

The law provides a variety of methods to turn this situation around. Among its key provisions are its increases in education and training, job counseling, transition and placement assistance, and additional help for disabled veterans.  It also amends the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) to clarify what constitutes a benefit and a hostile work environment.  One of the biggest boosts toward the goal of getting veterans employed is likely the tax credits to be given to employers hiring veterans. The law would provide a tax credit of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been looking for a job for more than six months, a $2,400 credit for veterans who are unemployed for more than 4 weeks but less than 6 months and a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job for more than six months.

 

Willful Disregard of USERRA Carries Substantial Penalties

Two appellate courts, in the space of days, ruled on cases under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Both affirmed substantial awards to the employee because of the employer’s willful disregard of the law. Both involved pre-service jobs with pay that included commissions. Fryer v. A.S.A.P. Fire & Safety Corp., No. 10-2047 (1st Cir. Sept. 9, 2011); Serricchio v. Wachovia Securities. LLC, No. 10-1590 (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2011).

These cases make clear that employers should promptly reemploy a returning servicemember into the proper “escalator” position, i.e., one with the “seniority, status and pay” of the pre-service position. While that may seem an easy obligation, it often is difficult to identify that position, particularly where the pre-service job involves commissions and changing markets. That the market may have changed and that there is not a certainty as to what would have occurred to the position during a servicemember’s absence does not establish a legal defense.

Continue Reading