Catch-22: To Give or Not to Give Raises and Bonuses after Employees Unionize

13 August 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Giving employees raises and bonuses can be complicated. As we previously discussed, misclassifying a bonus can result in an accounting nightmare. And one well-intentioned employer misstep, such as promising an employee payment of a bonus, can quickly reclassify a discretionary bonus as a non-discretionary bonus that must be accounted for in a non-exempt employee’s regular rate. When workers unionize, an additional wrinkle is added to the complex landscape of bonuses and raises – whether or not an employer must continue to give raises and bonuses to its employees after they unionize.

Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that provides some clarity on this issue. Specifically, the court reversed part of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order that a medical transport company bring back sporadic gift-giving and bonuses that were stopped when its workers unionized.

The rule under the National Labor Relations Act is twofold:

(1) Employers may not withhold or stop giving bonuses or raises to undermine union organizing efforts or retaliate against union activity, and

(2) Employers may not dole out bonuses or raises to unionized employees without first negotiating their terms with the union, unless it already does so regularly

As the court opined, employers are often caught in a Catch-22 where it is potentially seen as improper if they do give out bonus payments and improper if they don’t. Recognizing this dilemma as background, the court overturned the NLRB’s conclusion that an employer’s suspension of gift and discretionary raises was unlawful because it was not supported by substantial evidence.

The facts are as follows: A family-owned medical transport company had around 55 employees and had never adopted a formalized, written wage policy. The company told new hires that they could expect periodic pay raises on their work anniversaries, but those promises were rarely fulfilled. Instead, the pay increases occurred at irregular intervals, ranging from two weeks to over 22 months, and the amount of the pay increases varied from 25 cents to $2.50 per hour. There was no clear connection between the amount and timing of the pay raises and any other predictable metric such as seniority or performance.

Similar to the pay raises, the medical transport company did not have a formalized bonus policy or standardized gift practice. The company held an annual Christmas potluck where the owners gave out gifts and prizes from their personal funds and on one occasion donated $10,000 to an employee whose home was devastated by a mudslide. The owners did not keep a record of the gifts or claim the gifts as a tax deduction. The employees also never claimed the gifts as wages and did not report them on their income taxes. Once the union was elected, the company stopped giving pay raises and holiday gifts, stating that the pay raises and gifts were discretionary and that the company now had to negotiate any pay raises with the union.

The court’s decision turned on whether or not the holiday gifts and pay raises were a “longstanding practice of automatically paying predictable amounts at known intervals.” Based on the unpredictability of the payment amounts and timing, and a lack of nexus to a predictable metric, the court held that the company did not have an obligation to continue pay raises after the workers unionized. Similarly, the Christmas gifts were not regularly given and were not tied to an employee’s remuneration so there was no obligation to continue giving Christmas gifts each year after the workers unionized.

To prevent getting in a similar debacle, employers should consider having a formalized wage policy and carefully classify each payment of any bonuses or gifts given to employees. And, as always, employers should consult with counsel throughout the unionization process, especially before they stop or start giving out raises and bonuses.

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

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ