New York Labor and Employment Law Report

In a 3-2 vote on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued its final rule on non-compete clauses, declaring all non-compete clauses to be unfair methods of competition, resulting in a national ban on non-compete clauses.

Read More >> Non-Compete Clauses May Be A Thing Of The Past: Analyzing the FTC’s Final Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses

On March 8, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas issued a decision striking down the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) recently-adopted rule governing the standard for joint employer status, further delaying the rule’s implementation.

Read More >> Texas Federal Court Strikes Down NLRB Joint Employer Rule

On Jan. 17, 2024, the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department decided a pivotal case for employers after years of uncertainty. In Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., the Second Department decided against following Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, a First Department decision that carried steep consequences for employers in New York for violations of New York Labor Law Section 191 (Section 191).

Read More >> Second Department Weighs in on Employees Fully Paid But Who Seek Liquidated Damages for Not Being Paid Weekly: You Can’t Get Something for Nothing

Effective Nov. 17, 2023, New York General Obligations Law 5-336 was amended to further restrict employers’ use of non-disclosure or confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements when the factual foundation involves discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Since its enactment, the law has broadly prohibited non-disclosure provisions in agreements to settle discrimination claims “unless the condition of confidentiality is the complainant’s preference.”[1]

Read More >> New York Further Restricts Employers’ Use of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Certain Settlement Agreements

On October 27, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a final rule that vastly expands the definition of joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As we reported previously, this new rule rescinds and replaces the 2020 focus on “direct and immediate control” with a less-demanding standard intended to expressly ground the joint-employer rule in common-law agency principles.

Read More >> NLRB Issues Final Rule Expanding Joint Employer Status

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on Sept. 1, 2023, that its EEO-1 filing platform will open on Oct. 31, 2023. The deadline for employers to file their EEO-1 reports will be Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023.

Read More >> EEO-1 Filing Opens on Oct. 31, 2023

The following article by Bond attorney Alice Stock was published by Law360

Can an employer give employees a wage increase or benefits improvement during a union organizing campaign or while negotiating a first collective bargaining agreement after a union has won an election? At present, in most situations, it will be unlawful for an employer to do so.

Read More >> Conflicting NLRB Stances Create Employer Compliance Plight

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court’s ruling that an employer was not subject to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and New York Labor Law § 860 (the WARN Acts) when they closed a buffet restaurant and laid off over one hundred employees. In Roberts v. Genting New York, LLC, No. 21-833, the Second Circuit held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that for purposes of the WARN Acts, the buffet was an operating unit and, therefore, Defendants were subject to the written notice requirements as prescribed by law.

Read More >> Taking a Gamble: Plant Closings and Mass Layoffs Under the WARN Act

On May 30, 2023 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) General Counsel issued a memorandum advancing the position that non-compete agreements between employers and employees, which limit employees from accepting certain jobs at the end of their employment, interfere with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The memo, which is the latest pronouncement in an aggressive agenda to curtail established management practices, and expand the reach of the Act, directs the NLRB’s regional staff to begin enforcement of this novel, expansive interpretation of the law.

Read More >> NLRB General Counsel Issues Sweeping Challenge to Non-Compete Agreements

On Feb. 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) ruled in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, that the mere proffer of a draft severance agreement containing broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). You can read our prior blog post outlining the details of the Board’s decision here.

Read More >> NLRB General Counsel Releases Guidance on Board’s McLaren Macomb Decision

On Feb. 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued its decision in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), where it held that severance agreements with broad confidentiality and/or nondisparagement provisions impermissibly chill and restrain employees’ exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The decision applies in both union and non-union workplaces. The decision is significant in that it overruled prior Board precedent and signals the Board’s unwillingness to enforce or otherwise accept severance agreements, or key provisions of those agreements, that bind signatory employees’ confidentiality and nondisparagement obligations that the Board considers to be too broad. The Board’s decision would not apply to supervisors, managers, or individuals not otherwise subject to Section 7 of the NLRA.

Read More >> The NLRB’s Latest Decision Restricts the Use of Broad Confidentiality and Nondisparagement Clauses in Severance Agreements

On Dec. 14, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a decision that (again) modifies its standard for bargaining-unit determination cases where a labor union seeks to represent a unit that contains some, but not all, of the job classifications at a particular workplace. The decision, in American Steel Construction, Inc., revives the Board’s prior test governing such determinations set forth in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), which was overruled in PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), and The Boeing Co., 368 NLRB No. 67 (2019).

In its 2011 Specialty Healthcare decision, the Board identified the elements to be satisfied if the proposed union was to be recognized. Among these were that the unit is “sufficiently distinct.” If a party contested the petitioned-for unit on this ground – thereby arguing that certain employees not included in the proposed unit should have been – it would bear the burden of proving that there was an “overwhelming community of interest” between the petitioned-for employees and excluded employees in order to add the excluded employees to the petitioned-for unit. This was a difficult standard for employers to meet and widely recognized as a boon for union organizing.  In the wake of Specialty Healthcare, unusual “microunits” were organized, including cosmetic and fragrance counter employees at a Macy’s department store.  

In its 2017 PCC Structurals decision, the Board overruled Specialty Healthcare and adopted a different test for the “sufficiently distinct” element: instead of the “overwhelming community of interest” test, the Board adopted a test whereby “the interests of those within the proposed unit and the shared and distinct interests of those excluded from that unit must be comparatively analyzed and weighed.” This test therefore removed the burden from the employer challenging the composition of the unit and instituted a balancing test that did not explicitly begin with deference to the petitioned-for unit. The test gave employers far greater ability to oppose recognition of a unit consisting of some, but not all, of the employees within their workplace.  

This week’s decision in American Steel expressly overrules PCC Structurals and Boeing and reinstates the “overwhelming community of interest” standard of Specialty Healthcare. The Board elaborated that this means that when there are only “minimal differences, from the perspective of collective bargaining… then an overwhelming community of interest exists, and that classification must be included in the unit.” The Board indicated that meeting this standard would be akin to showing that “there is no rational basis for the exclusion.” So long as the petitioned-for unit consists of a clearly identifiable group of employees with a shared “community of interest,” the Board will presume the unit to be appropriate. The impact of this decision is to again empower unions and employees to organize along narrower lines of job classification. Even prior to American Steel, employers have seen a significant uptick in organizing activity in the last several years. This decision will likely further invigorate unions to again focus on “micro units” as a path to organizing workplaces, and employers again face the prospects of multiple distinct bargaining units among their employees.

If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this decision, or other legal developments, please contact Peter Wiltenburg or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice.