The COVID-19 pandemic has unquestionably created challenging times for employers and employees. Among the many issues facing employers has been the filing of various unfair labor practice charges around the country. The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel recently issued a memorandum providing a summary of several pending COVID-19-related cases, and conveying his approach to each case in which he found the complaints had merit or directed that other action be taken. Some of the key cases summarized by the General Counsel included the following:
Protected Concerted Activity
A health care employee was coercively questioned by her employer after she helped draft a letter requesting more input into how in-person services would be provided to clients during the pandemic. The employee was also admonished by the employer, told to contact only management regarding work problems, and warned that taking problems to her co-workers would make matters worse. The employer threatened the employee with termination if she failed to follow these management directives.
A group of food delivery employees protested the company’s alleged failure to enforce social distancing and provide personal protective equipment, e.g., gloves, masks, and hand sanitizer. The employees then exercised the option to take leave without pay. Thereafter, when the employees asked whether they remained employed, all employees were permitted to resume working, except for two employees, including the protest leader.
Discriminatory Layoff and Recall
An employer was accused of selecting the only two employees in a recently certified two-person bargaining unit for layoff, while retaining other subordinate, less-skilled employees, in an alleged effort to erode the bargaining unit, an intention the employer made clear at the bargaining table.
A hotel employer denied recall rights to employees who were laid off in mid-March, the large majority of whom were known union supporters, while offering recall rights to others, the large majority of whom did not support the union. The employer had also recently expressed anti-union animus.
Refusal to Bargain or Provide Information
A school system closed and moved to remote learning due to a governor’s order. The General Counsel stated that, generally, an employer is permitted to, at least initially, act unilaterally during emergencies such as COVID-19, so long as its actions are reasonably related to the emergency. However, although the school was not required to bargain over the decision to close since it was mandated by the state, it must negotiate over the decision and its effects within a reasonable time thereafter. The General Counsel directed further investigation into (1) whether the changes were reasonably related to the COVID-19 emergency, and (2) whether those changes were material, substantial, and significant adjustments to preexisting terms of employment.
A nursing home employer was accused of failing to bargain for an extended period of time for a successor collective bargaining agreement. The General Counsel found that the pandemic did not privilege an employer to refuse to (1) hold bargaining sessions (including via teleconference) from mid-March to mid-May, (2) respond to the union’s proposals over email for two months, or (3) consider or discuss a proposed memorandum of understanding over hazard pay where there was no contract in effect.
The pandemic did not excuse an employer from bargaining before unilaterally eliminating furloughed employees’ health insurance and vacation leave balances in the midst of uncertainty caused by the pandemic and related government restrictions on reopening.
In a case concerning COVID-19-related layoffs, the General Counsel directed that a complaint be issued due to the employer’s refusal to provide a seniority list of affected employees, paid time off accruals for affected employees, communications with union members and clients regarding the layoffs, and information regarding the expected return-to-work date.
The General Counsel noted that COVID-19 has created unprecedented challenging times for employers, employees and unions alike. However, as the above case summaries demonstrate, employers are not absolved of their legal obligations, and must still ensure that their actions do not run afoul of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act or other laws.
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.