Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Emerging Issues
In Labor Law,
Immigration, and
Social Media
Presented by Stuart Newman,
James W. King and Colleen Regan
July 15, 2015
Labor Law Update
Stuart Newman July 2015
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
NLRB Expedited Election Rules
• New Rules designed to shorten time period from petition
to election less than 25 days
• New Rules will require much faster employer action
• Notice of petition posted within 2 days of petition
• Pre-election hearing scheduled within 8 days of petition
• Employer position statement on potential election issues due
within 7 days, including preliminary voter list
• Final voter eligibility list due within 2 days of direction of election
and must include phone numbers and email addresses
3
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
How the New Rules impact us:
• How the New Rules impact us:
• Shorter time period between petition and election is designed to
favor unions and increase union “win” rates
• New and compressed NLRB filing deadlines require more
advance preparation to identify “supervisors” and define “unit”
issues
• Shorter “campaign period” requires a better “early warning
system” and faster HR response to warning signs
• Heightened risk warrants review of existing supervisor training
programs and employee engagement strategies
4
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
How and Why the NLRA Applies to All
Employers and Employees
• The NLRA applies to all employers, including union and
non-union employers.
• Section 7 of the NLRA gives employees the right
• To form, join or assist unions.
• To bargain collectively through “representatives.”
• To engage in other “concerted activities.”
• to bargain, or
• for other mutual aid or protection.
• To refrain from such activities
• It is unlawful to interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right to
engage in protected concerted activity
5
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Employer Policies/Handbooks
• A Rule violates the Act if it “reasonably tends to chill employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights.”
• Historically, the NLRB has said that it must
(1) Give a rule a reasonable reading;
(2) Refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation;
(3) Read the rule in the context in which it appears; and
(4) Not presume improper interference with employee rights.
• Even if a rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activities, it is
unlawful if
(1) Employees “reasonably construe” it as prohibiting their rights;
(2) The rule is promulgated in response to union activity;
(3) The rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.
• Recently, the Board has seized on ambiguities to find violations.
6
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Report of the General Counsel –
Employer Rules and Policies
• Confidentiality Rules
• Do not discuss "customer or employee information" outside of
work, including "phone numbers [and] addresses.” (Unlawful).
• No unauthorized disclosure of "business 'secrets' or other
confidential information.“ (Lawful)
• Employee Statements
• "[B]e respectful to the company, other employees, customers,
partners, and competitors." (Unlawful)
• No "rudeness or unprofessional behavior toward a customer, or
anyone in contact with" the company. (Lawful)
• No "unwanted, offensive, or inappropriate" e-mails. (Unlawful)
• No "use of racial slurs, derogatory comments, or insults.” (Lawful)
• Confidentiality Rules
7
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Report of the General Counsel –
Employer Rules and Policies, cont.
• Statements to Media/ Outside Parties
• Employees are not authorized to speak to any representatives of
the media about company matters unless authorized and must
refer all media inquiries to the Company. (Unlawful)
• The company strives to effectively manage crisis situations. The
company will respond to the media only through the designated
spokespersons. (Lawful)
• Use of Company IP
• Do "not use any Company logos, trademarks, graphics, or
advertising materials" in social media. (Unlawful)
• "Respect all copyright and other intellectual property laws, for the
Employer’s protection as well as your own. (Lawful).
8
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Report of the General Counsel –
Employer Rules and Policies, cont.
• Photography, Recording
• "Taking unauthorized pictures or video on company property" is
prohibited. (Unlawful)
• No cameras are to be allowed in the store or parking lot without
prior approval from the corporate office. (Lawful)
• Leaving Work
• "Walking off the job ..." is prohibited. (Unlawful)
• Entering or leaving Company property without permission may
result in discharge.“ (Lawful)
9
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Questions?
10
Immigration Update
James W. King July 2015
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Immigration Executive Actions?
• Three “buckets”
(1) Deferred Action program for
undocumented individuals
(2) Border security and enforcement changes
(3) Improvements to the processing of business and
family immigration benefits
12
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Why is President Obama taking
this action now?
• Nearly 20 years since last major immigration package
• 12 million living in shadows without status
• Polls support immigration reform
• Congressional inaction in spite of bipartisan efforts,
Senate victory in 2012
13
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
What is the legal authority for the
President to act?
• Federal immigration statutes and regulations
• Prosecutorial discretion
• Precedents from former Presidents
14
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
How will these changes be implemented?
• A mixed bag: some guidance forthcoming via memos and
policy guidelines, some changes will require rule-making
• Can these actions be reversed or thwarted?
(1) Lawsuits – on-going (Fifth Circuit)
(2) De-funding agencies – tried and failed
(3) A post Obama administration can “reverse course”
15
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
DACA Expansion and DAPA Program
Defining our terms:
• DACA = Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
Existing DACA program expanded by removing age limit
Will cover about 300,000 new DACA beneficiaries
• DAPA = Deferred Action for Parental Accountability
Undocumented parent of a USC or LPR child born before 11/20/2014
and living in U.S. since 1/1/2010 can obtain three-year work permit
Will benefit about 4 million individuals
16
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Expanded DACA/New DAPA Programs
Enjoined
• 26 States sue to stop Obama administration from
deferred action program implementation
• Injunction issued
• But, in meantime, 2,000 individuals got three-year EADs
• Documents must be returned if issued after 2/16/15
• Potential I-9 consequences
17
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
What might DACA and
DAPA mean for employers?
• So-called “Honesty Policies” will be tested
• Certain industries may have a blanket
“forgiveness” policy: But will this impact
the application of the Honesty Policy in other arenas?
• California Labor Code § 1024.6 specifically prohibits an employer
from taking adverse action or retaliating against an employee
because the employee changed personal information
18
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
The Form I-9:
New approaches to a 27-year-old form
• Per DHS guidance on DACA:
Employer will need to create new I-9 and
attach it to old I-9
• Employer also must run new E-Verify query:
But will this flag the issue to ICE?
• For unionized employers: Collective bargaining agreement
may be problematic in terms of limiting use of a new I-9
and/or E-Verify.
19
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
The employer’s role in this
“brave new world” of DACA and DAPA
• Employer community now comfortable with the formulation, “Do you now or in the future need an employer to sponsor you for work authorization”
• Emergence of a large class of workers who do not need sponsorship but whose DACA/DAPA status (and employment authorization) is at risk
• Can an employer refuse to hire DACA or DAPA beneficiaries?
• DACA/DAPA beneficiaries are not a “protected class” for citizenship discrimination purposes
• What about national origin and alienage discrimination?
20
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
What are the potential risks
to employers?
• Is there a risk that a worker’s unauthorized status could be “imputed” to the employer of a DACA or DAPA individual?
21
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Possible New Class of Workers: H-4
• Expanding work authorization to H-4 spouses:
Where H-1B spouse has an approved I-140 immigrant visa petition OR
Where H-1B spouse has been granted an H-1B extension beyond 6 years
First approvals are in (filings as of May 26, 2015)
EAD expiration will match H-4 status expiration
22
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Improving the Green Card Program
• Form I-485 adjustment of status (“AOS”) basics
• Can’t file until a green card (“GC”) number is available
Hard to promote employee into new role
Spouse and kids can’t work
Employer has to continue to pay for work permit renewals
Demoralizing for employee
• Change in regulations required; final rule expected by late 2015
• Would affect about 500,000 people
23
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Improving the Green Card Program
• Proposal to allow foreign national employees to file the AOS before a green card number is current, so long as visa number is not “unavailable”
• Proposal to interpret Visa Bulletin differently to reduce green card quota backlogs, prevent “waste” of GC numbers
• Challenges: could accelerate visa number movement, thereby putting pressure on employers to promote FNs into the GC role and/or pay the GC salary earlier than anticipated
• Benefits of AOS “early filing” to employees:
Work and travel documents for family members
AC-21 portability enables career mobility (but could hurt sponsoring employers)
24
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Improving the Green Card Program
Clarification of eligibility for AC-21 portability
• “Same or similar occupation” clarity
• Could enhance worker mobility
• Employers could lose the value of sponsorship with earlier employee resignations
25
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
F-1 student work authorization
improvements
• ICE and USCIS will develop proposed regs for Notice and Comment, with
these potential benefits to STEM students:
Extend the 17-month term of STEM Optional Practical Training (“OPT“) work
authorization
Expand fields of study that will qualify for STEM OPT
Allow STEM OPT even if an intervening non-STEM degree is in the picture
Grant “dual intent” to F-1 students
• Regs may require stronger “nexus” between OPT employment and
university field of study, better safeguards for U.S. workers
• Current WashTech lawsuit challenges Federal government OPT program,
affords IT workers “standing” to sue
26
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
PERM modernization
• At the 10-year mark: system is dysfunctional, broken,
and misaligned with employer real-world recruitment
practices
• DOL seeking input from stakeholder community:
“modernized recruitment”
• Possibilities for Premium Processing
• Options to cure “non-material errors”
27
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
For more information
On-Line Resources:
www.immstar.com
Executive Immigration Action Source Materials
(courtesy of the American Immigration Lawyers Association)
Worksite Harmony and the President’s Executive Actions:
It’s All about Immigration Timing
(from www.nationofimmigrators.com, Dec. 3, 2014)
28
http://www.immstar.com/http://www.immstar.com/http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=6755|37861|47963http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i-9s/worksite-harmony-its-all-about-immigration-timing/http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i-9s/worksite-harmony-its-all-about-immigration-timing/http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i-9s/worksite-harmony-its-all-about-immigration-timing/http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i-9s/worksite-harmony-its-all-about-immigration-timing/http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i-9s/worksite-harmony-its-all-about-immigration-timing/
©2014 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Questions?
29
Social Media
Update
Colleen Regan
July 2015
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Issues Arise When Social Media Used . . .
• By employer in making hiring decisions
• By employer when conducting internal investigations
• By employee when talking about work or disclosing
work-related information
• Concerns include:
• employer’s potential liability for employee statements
• (e.g., threats of violence, harassment or discrimination)
• criticism or defamation of employer
• employee’s freedom of speech
• employee’s NLRA rights
31
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
National Labor Relations Act
• Section 7 of the NLRA prohibits employers from
enacting policies that stifle or prevent employees from
engaging in "concerted activity" for "mutual aid and
protection."
• According to the NLRB, there are two main points to
consider:
• Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they chill the
kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the
discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.
• An employee's comments on social media are generally not
protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group
activity among employees or working terms and conditions.
32
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
March 18, 2015 General Counsel Memo
Addressing Employer Rules
• Cannot have blanket rules on discussing “employee information”
• Cannot require employees to only be respectful
• Cannot prohibit behavior up to but not quite insubordination
• Cannot require refraining from damaging company reputation or acting
not in company’s best interest
• Cannot prohibit employees from disagreeing with each other, even
with strong language
• Cannot prevent employees from speaking to the media on their own or
other employees’ behalf
• can stop them from relaying a “company official position”
• Cannot prevent fair use of logos and trademarks
• Cannot prevent pictures or videos on all company property
• Cannot prohibit “walking off the job” as expression of concerted activity
33
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Protected Activity & Social Media
• An employee is protected under the NLRA when engaging
in a discussion of work conditions with other coworkers on
social media.
• Sharing information about wages
• Complaining about policies or managers
• Displaying union-related insignias/ logos
• Expressing union support
• Attempting to organize a union
• Otherwise discussing employment terms
• Examples Include:
• Facebook post with comments/”likes”
• Twitter discussion and retweets
• Blogs with comments
34
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 1
35
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 2
36
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 3
37
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 4
38
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 5
39
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Anthem’s Social Media Policy - 6
40
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Legal Issues For
Telecommuting / Work From Home
• Wage and hour issues
• overtime and off-the clock
• meal periods and rest breaks
• record-keeping
• Safety issues
• Workers’ compensation/liability issues
• Posting requirements
• Reimbursement of business expenses
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Third-party privacy rights
• Across state lines—which law applies?
• Reasonable accommodations
41
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Questions?
42
©2015 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Presenters from Seyfarth Shaw
43
Stuart Newman, Partner – Atlanta, GA
James W. King, Partner – Atlanta, GA
Colleen Regan, Partner – Los Angeles, CA