Archive for June, 2010

Senate Unanimously Confirms Hayes and Pearce to NLRB

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Today, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Mark Pearce and Brian Hayes to the National Labor Relations Board. President Obama had nominated both of them to the Board nearly one year ago, in July 2009.

As we reported on our blog in March, President Obama had appointed Pearce, along with highly controversial pro-union attorney, Craig Becker, using what is known as a recess appointment, which is an appointment made while Congress is not in session and does not require Congress’ assent. Because these appointments were made during a Congressional recess, the terms were set to expire rather quickly, ending in 2011. Now that the Senate has approved Pearce, his term will not expire until August 2013.

Hayes, a management-side labor attorney, will fill a term expiring in December 2012. With these two appointments, the NLRB will have its full five members. The NLRB has not had full membership since December 2007 and, for over twenty-seven months up until this April, it operated with only two members. Over that period of time, the two member board decided approximately 600 cases on which they could agree. As we reported on our blog last week, on June 17, the United States Supreme Court held that the two member board did not have the authority to issue any of these rulings.

Interim NLRB General Counsel Named

Monday, June 21st, 2010

As we had previously reported on June 3, Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, announced his resignation effective June 20. His resignation took effect yesterday. In a press release issued yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board announced Meisburg’s interim replacement. President Obama has named veteran NLRB attorney, Lafe Solomon, as acting General Counsel effective today, June 21. Mr. Solomon began his career with the NLRB in 1972 as a field examiner and, for the past ten years, has directed the NLRB’s Office of Representation Appeals.

U.S. Supreme Court voids hundreds of NLRB decisions

Friday, June 18th, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that the National Labor Relations Board did not have the authority to issue rulings from January 2008 to March 2010 when there were only two members sitting on the Board.

Normally the NLRB is comprised of five members. In December 2007, the terms of three of the five members expired, and no new appointments had been made. Prior to the expiration of the term, all five members agreed to delegate their authority to a three-member panel, as the National Labor Relations Act provides that the Board may delegate its powers only to a “group of three or more members.” Even though there were only two members remaining, the Board decided that two members constituted a quorum of the theoretical three-member panel and therefore had the authority to issue decisions for the Board.

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Congress specifically required in the NLRA that the Board’s full power could be designated to no fewer than three members. Thus, three members constitutes a quorum, and the Board had no authority to decree that a “quorum of a quorum” would be sufficient. As a result, the nearly 600 NLRB cases decided by the two-person panel from January 2008 to March 10 are now void. It is expected that the current four-member NLRB will decide how to resolve those cases.

Federal court says Massachusetts wage/hour laws may apply to employees who perform work in other states

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held that a Massachusetts company may be liable under the Massachusetts Wage Act for failing to pay overtime to an employee, even though that employee worked in the company’s Connecticut facility.

The Plaintiff, James Gonyou, worked as a technician and, later, a technician supervisor for Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc., a Massachusetts telecommunications company that provides tech services throughout New England. On January 5, 2009, Gonyou became a technician supervisor at Tri-Wire’s Danbury, Connecticut facility. On December 14, 2009, Gonyou filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts against Tri-Wire claiming that he had worked approximately 350 hours of overtime between January and July of 2009 and that Tri-Wire had not paid him overtime pay for those hours. Gonyou claimed that Tri-Wire’s failure to pay overtime violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Tri-Wire filed a motion to dismiss Gonyou’s claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, arguing that the Massachusetts Wage Act did not apply because Gonyou worked in Connecticut. The court, disagreed, however, noting that the language of the Massachusetts Wage Act refers to the location of the employer, not the employee:

no employer in the commonwealth shall employ any of his employees in an occupation…for a work week longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

(emphasis added.)

The court decided that this language would be interpreted most reasonably to apply to any Massachusetts corporation that employs individuals both in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and the court did not find that applying Massachusetts law in this situation would be unfair to Tri-Wire.  Accordingly, the court allowed Gonyou to proceed with his Massachusetts overtime claims against Tri-Wire.  Gonyou v. Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc., D. Mass., 2010.

Of course, even if the court had dismissed Gonyou’s Massachusetts overtime claims, Gonyou still could be entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA; so why bother dismissing the Massachusetts claims?  Because, unlike the FLSA, employers who are found to have violated the Massachusetts Wage Act are automatically required to pay triple damages to employees who are owed overtime or other wages.  The district court’s decision suggests that Massachusetts employers who make wage payment errors will be forced to pay triple damages for those errors, even if those errors were made with respect to employees who don’t work in Massachusetts.

Remember that the DOL is Cracking Down on Unpaid Summer Internships

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

With the summer months approaching and the economy still in a slump, many area businesses are likely to be flooded with the résumés of high-school and college students seeking internships. Before taking action on any of these résumés, it is important for businesses first to be aware that many internships must be paid.

The idea of a paid internship may seem like an oxymoron since the word ‘intern’ usually connotes an unpaid arrangement. Indeed, internships are generally thought of as unpaid, mutually beneficial arrangements: the intern gains valuable work experience that will undoubtedly be included on her résumé, and the business gains free labor for the summer, labor that will undoubtedly answer the telephone, file, copy, and perform other miscellaneous tasks. But for the purposes of wage and hour laws, our traditional notion of what an internship should be is irrelevant.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is the federal law requiring the payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation, generally prohibits unpaid internships, especially in the private, for-profit sector. Unpaid internships in the public sector and at nonprofit, charitable organizations, where the interns volunteer without the expectation of compensation, are usually permissible. Yet, at for-profit companies, the FLSA by and large requires that interns be paid at least the minimum wage as well as any overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 in a given week. In other words, under the FLSA, interns will oftentimes be treated as employees and must be compensated for all hours worked.

Just in time for the summer months, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which is the federal agency with enforcement authority over wage-and-hour laws, appears to be cracking down on unpaid internships. In fact, in April, the DOL published a fact sheet on its Web site, titled “Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” which makes it clear that the DOL will view most internships as an employment arrangement requiring compensation.

Although the fact sheet reiterates the FLSA’s implied mandate that internships be paid, it sets forth a six-part test for determining the circumstances under which an internship can be unpaid. As the fact sheet is quick to point out, these circumstances are very narrow, and the determination of whether an internship meets this narrow exception depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each internship program, including the following six factors:

  • The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training, which would be given in an educational environment;
  • The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  • The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  • The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  • The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  • The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If each of the above factors is met, then an employment arrangement does not exist under the FLSA, and, as a result, the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply. Under the DOL fact sheet, an intern will be considered an employee if she is engaged in any business operations or is performing any productive work for the business, such as filing, copying, answering telephones, or other clerical work or assisting customers. Additionally, if an intern is placed with a business for a trial period with the expectation that she will be hired on a permanent basis at some later date, that intern will also be considered an employee, entitled to minimum-wage and overtime compensation.

The fact that an intern may be receiving some benefit in the form of a new skill, work experience, or better work habits in the course of their internship is irrelevant and will not exclude them from the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime requirements. In fact, meeting each of the six exclusion factors will be very difficult, and the DOL, given its ramped-up enforcement efforts, is likely to be highly skeptical of businesses that do not pay their interns, scrutinizing them very closely.

Educational internship programs are generally exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime requirements. Indeed, the more the internship is structured around an educational program, the more likely it will be considered an unpaid arrangement. Usually, this occurs when a college or university oversees the internship program and provides credit for participation in the internship. Even then, the intern cannot be performing any services that would benefit the business. If the intern does, the internship arrangement will come within the FLSA’s protections.

Before taking on any interns this summer, businesses should carefully examine the nature of the work the intern will be doing. Bear in mind that anytasks that benefit the business, such as filing or copying, entitle an intern to compensation of at least minimum wage and overtime pay, when applicable. Businesses that erroneously label an individual an intern violate the minimum wage and overtime laws, and can face severe penalties.

NLRB General Counsel Resigns

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, announced that he will resign effective June 20.  Meisburg had received a recess appointment to this position in January 2006 from President George W. Bush.

President Obama now has the immediate authority to appoint a successor.  Given his pro-union appointments to the NLRB in March, many are left wondering whether President Obama will appoint another union supporter to the NLRB, this time in the soon-to-be vacant position of General Counsel.

Summer attire can cause headaches for employers

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Summertime is approaching, and some employers may find that as the heat creeps into the workplace, so do the sundresses, shorts, tank tops, and sandals.  Some employees wear clothes that seem to reveal more than they conceal, which can create problems in the workplace, not only because an employee’s casual attire may not reflect the level of professionalism an organization wants to portray, but also because, in extreme cases, attire that is inappropriate could form the basis for hostile work environment claims.  Many employers implement dress codes to help alleviate these issues.  However, implementing a dress code can bring its own set of problems.  If you have a dress code, or are thinking of implementing one, here are some things you should keep in mind:

  • Enforce the dress code policy consistently.  As with any policy, the failure to apply a dress code equally to all employees puts employers at risk for discrimination claims.
  • Put your policy in writing and make sure your policy is clear and specific.  It should be easy for employees to understand how they can abide by the dress code and easy for supervisors to know when a violation occurs.  A policy that is vague and allows for differences in interpretation may cause more problems than it solves.
  • Beware of possible conflicts with state or federal law.  For example, a policy that prohibits men from wearing ponytails or earrings while allowing women to do so could constitute discrimination based on sex or gender.
  • Banning headwear or facial hair could violate religious beliefs.  In many cases, you may have to accommodate these beliefs.

Clearly the workplace of today differs from the workplace of 30 years ago.  Many employers have moved towards a more casual attitude with respect to workplace attire.  However, there can be a fine line between casual and inappropriate.  If you are experiencing problems with inappropriate attire in your workplace, you may want to create – or revamp – a dress code.  To avoid potential conflicts with state or federal laws, be sure to consult with labor and employment counsel for guidance in drafting, revising or implementing a dress code.