Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
If your company has no union, there is no need to worry about the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Right? Think again. More and more charges are being filed and successfully litigated on behalf of non-union employees under the NLRA. The government represents the charging party in such litigation, so cases are inexpensive to bring, and remedies against unsuspecting employers include being forced to reinstate fired employees and pay them full back wages or salaries with interest.
The place to start in understanding this little known, but increasingly important area of the law is ' 7 of the NLRA. It is here that Congress enshrined the right of employees to acted as a group ' 'concertedly' ' in regard to 'wages, hours and other terms and conditions' of employment. Specifically, this law provides that non-supervisory employees have the right to:
' self-organization, to form join, or assist any labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (Emphasis supplied).
It is this 'mutual aid or protection' language at the end of this clause that federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board have interpreted as protecting the group rights of even non-union employees. As early as 1962, in NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962), the Supreme Court held that employees without a union may take collective and concerted actions to air their grievances regarding their terms and conditions of employment. All that is required is that the conduct is both concerted (meaning acting together or merely seeking to initiate or prepare for group action) and engaged in for the employees' mutual aid or protection. Employees need only act with or on the authority of other employees and in pursuit of a collective aim, rather than simply to advance a personal aim.
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA is the muscle behind ' 7. Section 8(a)(1) provides that a company commits an unfair labor practice if it takes any action to 'interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7.' This most often means that an employer violates the Act and opens itself up to the full range of remedies whenever it terminates or disciplines an employee or takes any other adverse action against an employee who engages in collected concerted activities. Section 8(a)(1) is particularly potent because it can be violated, even if a company does not intend to deny employees their ' 7 rights ' an employer will be found to have committed an unfair labor practice regardless of any malicious intent.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?