Workforce Bulletin

By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza

On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These ...

By Gretchen Harders and Michelle Capezza

On May 8, 2013, the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued Technical Release 2013-02 (the “Release”) providing important guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act”) with regard to the requirement that employers provide notices to their employees of the existence of the Health Insurance Marketplace, generally referred to previously as the Exchange. These ...

In another major defeat for President Obama's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found that the Board lacked the authority to issue a 2011 rule which would have required all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act"), including those whose employees are not unionized, to post a workplace notice to employees.

By Adam C. Abrahms and Steven M. Swirsky

In another major defeat for President Obama’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found that the Board lacked the authority to issue a 2011 rule which would have required all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), including those whose employees are not unionized, to post a workplace notice to employees. The putative Notice, called a “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act,” is intended to ostensibly ...

By Paul H. Burmeister and Eric J. Conn

On April 5, 2013, OSHA published a formal Interpretation Letter (dated February 21, 2013) addressing whether, pursuant to OSHA’s regulation at 29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) (Representatives of Employers and Employees), employees at a worksite without a collective bargaining agreement may authorize a person affiliated with a union or community organization to act as the employees’ representative during proceedings under the OSH Act, including compliance inspections.  OSHA responded affirmatively.

29 C.F.R. 1903.8(c) provides:

"The representative(s) authorized by employees shall be an employee(s) of the employer.  However, if in the judgment of the Compliance Safety and Health Officer, good cause has been shown why accompaniment by a third party who is not an employee of the employer (such as an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer) is reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection of the workplace, such third party may accompany the Compliance Safety and Health Officer during the inspection."

OSHA’s April 5, 2013 Interpretation Letter clarified its interpretation of the types of non-employees it considers to be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of an effective and thorough physical inspection,” by stretching the meaning beyond what has historically been understood to include only individual’s with relevant technical expertise to aid in the inspection, such as those listed as examples in the language of the regulation; i.e., “an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer.”  This interpretation moves away from that commonsense reading, and expressly invites the involvement of non-technical union representatives, even from unions who have not been elected to represent the workforce.

OSHA broke the question down into two parts. First, OSHA stated affirmatively that the OSH Act recognizes the role of an employee representative to represent employees’ interests in enforcement related matters.  Specifically, the employee representative, OSHA asserts, need not be a co-worker at the worksite. The employee representative could include any person (including community organization members) who acts in a bona fide representative capacity.

Second, OSHA clarified that non-union employees may have a union representative act as their employee representative, under Section 8 of the OSH Act. However, the union representative must be duly authorized by the employee to act as his representative. OSHA also noted under 29 CFR § 1903.8 that OSHA may exercise its discretion in allowing a non-employee representative, but generally would allow it when the non-employee representative may make a positive contribution to the inspection. For example, the letter specifically cites non-employee representatives who are skilled in evaluating similar working conditions or are fluent in another language that may be helpful.

By:      Kara M. Maciel

The EEOC is holding a public meeting tomorrow, May 8, 2013, to discuss wellness programs and how the EEOC should interpret them under the ADA, GINA and other laws. This is welcome news to the employer community, who has been left without any guidance from the agency since 2000 as to how it will enforce wellness programs. The uncertainty generated by this lack of guidance has hampered businesses from implementing, or expanding, effective wellness programs.   

As we have explained in previous articles, the EEOC regulations, and the EEOC’s Interpretive and ...

For the unionized employer, the advent of the Affordable Care Act requires careful strategic thought about its impact on upcoming collective bargaining negotiations. Indeed, for companies with a unionized workforce, the ACA poses additional challenges and strategic considerations above and beyond those confronting

For the benefit of our readers, we have excerpted two issues from our April 2013 Immigration Alert of relevance for employers in the financial services industry:

USCIS Reports That H-1B Cap Is Reached in First Week

On April 8, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that it had received sufficient H-1B petitions to reach the annual quota for fiscal 2014.  As most H-1B employers know, the quota is 65,000 for regular H-1B petitions, plus another 20,000 for H-1B petitions filed for foreign nationals (“FNs”) who have obtained a master’s (or higher ...

By: Robert S. Groban, Jr.

On March 8, 2013, the USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it had recently revised the Employment Eligibility Verification form (“Form I-9”), and that employers must start using this new form by May 7, 2013.  Employers using prior versions of the Form I-9 on or after May 8, 2013, will violate the law and be subject to worksite enforcement fines and other penalties.

[Excerpt from EBG April 2013 Immigration Alert.  Click here to read the entire Immigration Alert.]

By Jordan B. Schwartz and Eric J. Conn

On March 18, 2013, President Obama nominated Thomas E. Perez, a Harvard Law School graduate and current federal prosecutor with a long track record of defending civil rights and vulnerable workers, to become the next U.S. Secretary of Labor.  Perez would replace Seth Harris, the Acting Secretary of Labor and former Deputy Secretary of Labor, who has been filling the role since Secretary Hilda Solis resigned from the post in January.

Thomas Perez’s Background 

Since October 2009, Perez has served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.  From 2006 to 2009, Perez served as Maryland’s Secretary of Labor.  In that capacity, he led efforts to target Maryland companies who were engaging in workplace fraud by imposing new restrictions on employees who had been misclassified as independent contractors.  Perez’s efforts led to the implementation of Maryland’s Workplace Fraud Act of 2009, with him stating that the Act would “ensure that employers who attempt to cheat the system, their workers, and their competitors, will pay a steep price for their actions.”

During his tenure as Maryland’s Secretary of Labor, where his jurisdiction included Maryland’s Occupational Safety and Health Division, Perez distinguished himself as a strong and vocal defender of safety protections for Maryland workers.  According to Fred Mason, the president of the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO, Perez fought to increase funding for the state occupational safety and health plan, which had been underfunded under Governor Robert Ehrlich.  Specifically, Mason stated that “that department went for a couple years with essentially no money to hire people to enforce laws that were already on the books.”  After Perez took office, “we began to make a comeback of sorts, in terms of having the necessary workers to do the inspections.”  Similarly, Peg Seminario, safety and health director at AFL-CIO, said she considered Perez “an excellent choice” to head the Labor Department.

The Nomination of Thomas Perez 

At a time when the President has promised to create more jobs and overhaul immigration policy, Mr. Obama has presented Mr. Perez, who would be the only Hispanic in the cabinet, as an American immigration success story, whose own history would help him tackle important current controversial issues.  At the White House on March 18, Obama called Perez a “consensus builder” who “understands that our economy works best when the middle class and those working to get into the middle class have the security they need on the job, a democratic voice in the workplace, everybody playing by the same set of rules.”  At the same press conference, Perez stated that:

“as you well know, our nation still faces critical economic challenges, and the department’s mission is as important as ever. . . . I am confident that together with our partners in organized labor, the business community, grass-roots communities, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, we can keep making progress for all working families.”

Not surprisingly, this nomination has drawn praise from worker advocates, and most Democrats have expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for this nomination.  Senator Patrick Leahy said in a statement that as a former Secretary of Labor in Maryland “and a fierce defender of workers’ rights and civil rights, [Perez] is uniquely situated to serve in this important post at a critical time when Congress will be considering issues like immigration reform, reducing unemployment, and continuing our economic recovery.”

Congressional Republicans, however, have indicated a potentially rocky confirmation process and voiced their concern that Perez is the “wrong man for this job.”  In particular, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has stated that “this is an unfortunate and needlessly divisive nomination” as “Mr. Perez has aggressively sought ways to allow the hiring of more illegal workers.”  Additionally, Representative John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee and thus a key house Republican on worker safety issues, has stated that “our country needs a labor secretary who will put America’s jobs before his own” and cited “troubling allegations in the media and an independent investigation” about Perez.

The Confirmation Hearing 

During the April 18, 2013 confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez stated that he would seek a balance of protecting worker safety while also encouraging economic growth.  Specifically, Mr. Perez told the Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that “job safety and job growth are not mutually exclusive” and thus “it is not necessary to choose between one and the other.”  When asked what his top priority would be as labor secretary, he responded “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  He also testified that other priorities would be reauthorizing the Workplace Investment Act with bipartisan support, pension security, enforcement of wage and hour laws, job safety and equal opportunity in the workplace.