NLRB Continues Its Transformation

02 January 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Depending on one’s perspective, in recent years the NLRB has either blazed a radical path in favor of unions and individual concerted activity or it is returning to its original role under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Whichever way you look at the Board’s recent decisions, it certainly has been busy in changing the ground rules that govern the conduct of employers, unions, and employees in the private workplace sector. Among other topics, we have recently reported on the NLRB’s evolving positions on the protected nature of social media, the use of class action waivers and even whether an at-will statement in an employee handbook is legal. Now the NLRB has issued a significant decision that reverses 50 years of its own precedent.

In the 1962 Bethlehem Steel case, 136 NLRB 1500, the Board held that when a labor contract expires containing a union dues checkoff provision, an employer does not violate the NLRA if it discontinues the dues checkoff. (“Dues checkoff” is a system in which an employer regularly deducts a portion of an employee’s wages to pay union dues.) This was an important bargaining tool that employers could use because the continued receipt of dues is essential to a union’s viability. However, on December 19, 2012, the NLRB reversed the Bethlehem Steel decision in WKYC-TU INC., 359 NLRB No. 30. In this case, the NLRB held that a dues checkoff provision survives the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and that an employer cannot unilaterally discontinue collecting union dues. That is, dues checkoff is now part of the “status quo” that an employer must maintain after a collective bargaining agreement expires while it is bargaining with a union for a new agreement. This ruling clearly shifts the balance of power in labor negotiations in favor of unions. An employer that does not heed this new decision runs the risk of committing an unfair labor practice and turning an economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike, which is often a risk to employers who engage in hard bargaining. There will undoubtedly be more such decisions coming from the NLRB in the coming months and years. We will keep you informed of them as the Board continues to reassert its position as the ultimate authority in private sector labor relations.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT