Workforce Bulletin

By:  Barry Guryan and Jeff Ruzal

In a highly publicized March 23, 2010 decision, Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 707 F.Supp.2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010), U.S. District Judge William Young for the District of Massachusetts rocked the Massachusetts business community by ruling that a group of janitorial franchisees were improperly classified as independent contractors, and that they were instead “employees” of commercial cleaning franchisor Coverall who are entitled to statutory protection under Massachusetts’ Wage laws including, among others, minimum wage, overtime pay, meal ...

On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA.  The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants who file an untimely [OSHA] whistleblower charge of their right to file a charge with the NLRB.”  As a result of this agreement, employers should expect an increase in the number of unfair labor practice claims filed by employees alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activity.

Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Section 11(c)) requires employees to file complaints alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activities within thirty days of the triggering adverse employment action.  The Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before the Senate, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employee and Workplace Safety about OSHA’s whistleblower program.  One of the key points of his testimony was that between 300 and 600 Section 11(c) complaints per year (roughly 10%) were filed beyond the 30-day deadline.  Dr. Michaels added that at least 100 of these complaints barely missed the deadline -- by less than a month.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), on the other hand, addresses different types of claims and also provides for a much longer statute of limitations.  Section 7 of the NLRA provide: “Employees shall have the right to. . . engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual air or protection.”  Section 8 prohibits unfair labor practices that “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.”  The NLRA has a 6-month statute of limitations for claims of unfair labor practices.

Because the NLRA’s statute of limitations is six months longer than the OSH Act’s, OSHA agents will now advise employees who file an untimely Section 11(c) claim that their claims may qualify as unfair labor practices under the NLRA, and explain their rights to file such claims with the NLRB, where their claims could be timely.  For a claim to qualify for protection as an unfair labor practice, however, the claim must involve “concerted activities.”  Thus, not every employee who was unable to file a timely Section 11(c) complaint will have a viable unfair labor practice claim, even if it would be timely under the NLRA.

The NLRB has provided a set of talking points to OSHA to help the OHSA agents discuss these rights with employees:

• OSHA recommends that you contact the NLRB as soon as possible, to inquire about filing a charge
  alleging unfair labor practices.
• The time limit to file a charge with the NLRB is 6 months from the unfair labor practice.
• The NLRB is responsible for enforcing employee rights under the NLRA. The NLRA protects employee rights to act together to try to improve working conditions, including safety and health conditions, even if the employees aren't in a union.
• OSHA may not determine whether you are covered by the NLRA. Please contact the NLRB to discuss your rights under the NLRA.

OSHA also plans to include this information when it sends letters alerting employees that their 11(c) claims are being closed as untimely.

Neither the NLRB nor OSHA has addressed the legal issues posed by this agreement.  Congress intended that employees must file safety related whistleblower complaints very quickly, which is why it set such a short limitations period.  The short deadline for such claims makes sense because safety and health issues pose special risks; i.e., it is not a matter of fairness at stake, it is potentially a matter of life and death, where delays in reporting such issues could have grave consequences.  Creating a loophole or backdoor to extend the filing deadline for claims that could have been timely pursued as 11(c) claims by treating them as NLRA violations could discourage timely reporting under the OSH Act.

Kara Maciel, a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment, Litigation, and Health Care and Life Sciences practices, in the Washington, DC, office, was quoted in an article titled “For Fine Dining Sector, Tip Pools Can Be Legal Trap.” (Read the full version – subscription required.)

Following is an excerpt:

As a wave of lawsuits hits restaurants over tip pool violations, fine dining establishments packed with sommeliers, mixologists and other high-end specialists that tend to take on some managerial duties face the greatest risks of becoming targets for litigation or ...

By Marisa S. Ratinoff and Amy B. Messigian

One of the main battlegrounds between employers and employees relates to the ability of employers to preclude class actions by way of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. In California, the seminal case of Gentry v. Superior Court (“Gentry”) has had the practical effect of invalidating class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements since 2007. Gentry held that an employment class action waiver was unenforceable as a matter of California public policy if the class action waiver would “undermine the ...

Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”

Following is an excerpt:

As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...

By Stuart M. Gerson

As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either opinion.

In Harris v. Quinn, the conservative majority of the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, held that an Illinois regulatory program that required quasi-public health care ...

Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”

Following is an excerpt:

As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...

Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.” 

Following is an excerpt:

As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either ...

The U.S. Supreme Court today held that the US Senate was not in recess on January 4, 2012, when President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the National Labor Relations Board under the Constitution's Recess Appointment Clause. In simple terms that means that the recess appointments were not proper and s decisions in which the recess appointees participated were not valid.

The U.S. Supreme Court today held that the US Senate was not in recess on January 4, 2012, when President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the National Labor Relations Board under the Constitution's Recess Appointment Clause. In simple terms that means that the recess appointments were not proper and s decisions in which the recess appointees participated were not valid.