#WorkforceWednesday®: What a Trump Win Means for Unions - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider - Whistleblower Breaks Details of NLRB Mail Ballot Election Abuse – Part II
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 11: Understanding Unions with Patrick Wilson, Maynard Nexsen Attorney (Part 1)
The Burr Broadcast: Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionization Efforts Explained
The Labor Law Insider - What Just Happened, and What’s Next? 2023 Labor Law Retrospective
The Labor Law Insider: Forget the Election: Union Representation Without the Messy Election is the Next Labor Law Reality, Part II
Employment Law Now VII-139 - An Interview With an Employee-Side Attorney on L&E Issues
Labor Peace Agreements (LPAs): Critical Considerations In Negotiating Your First Dealings With Unions
Today’s Fight for the Rights of Union Workers with Deborah Willig: On Record PR
#WorkforceWednesday: New COVID-19 Testing Guidance, NLRB Increases Use of Injunctive Relief, D.C. Amends Near-Universal Ban on Non-Competes - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: Project Labor Agreements Part II
The Labor Law Insider: Project Labor Agreements, Part I
The Labor Law Insider: New York Amazon Employees Vote for Union - What Do We Learn?
#WorkforceWednesday: State of the Union, Federal Task Force Report, Biden’s SCOTUS Pick - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: Understanding the Risk of Strikes Faced by the Healthcare Industry
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: The Pandemic Economy - Do Recent Strikes Portend the Resurgence of Unions?
Clean Energy Employers are the New Target for Organized Labor
Labor Law Insider: Employer Guidance - Reducing the Risk of a Successful Union Campaign
The Labor Law Insider: The Unions Are Coming! The Unions Are Coming!
What employers should do to avoid violation - On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) ruled that captive audience meetings— mandatory employer-sponsored meetings attempting to...more
During union representation campaigns, it is common for employers to advise employees of the downsides posed by union recognition. The current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has criticized these tactics, alleging that...more
On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a landmark decision in the case of Amazon Services LLC, banning so-called “captive audience meetings,” a tool regularly used by employers in response to...more
Reversing established precedent that has stood for decades, two recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board make it increasingly difficult for employers to make the argument to workers that unionization is not in...more
On November 13, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024) ruling that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by requiring employees under...more
Throwing out 75 Years of precedent in a single decision, on November 13, 2024, in Amazon.com Services LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) the Board overruled the seminal case of Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB...more
The National Labor Relations Board once again has reversed precedent. It will now use a case-by-case analysis to determine whether an employer’s statements about the negative impacts of unionization on the relationship...more
Two very recent post-election National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions portend a flurry of NLRB anti-employer activity prior to the beginning of the new administration. Both decisions demonstrate that the current...more
On November 8, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) handed down its decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB 135, turning 40-year-old precedent regarding what employers can and cannot...more
Following a landmark NLRB ruling last year, the answer is yes. For the last several decades, the process for union recognition of an employer’s workforce was largely unchanged....more
Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed two bills into law that affect California employers' discretion with regard to employees and applicants for employment. The first law seeks to prohibit so-called "captive...more
Washington is one of eight states with a law prohibiting employers from holding mandatory meetings addressing their position on religion, politics, and union organizing. ...more
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has been using a caffeinated approach to challenge employers in unfair labor practice disputes, with Section 10(j) injunction petitions at the top of the menu, often...more
It has been a particularly busy year on the labor and employment law front. To learn more about the major challenges employers face and developments your organization needs to address before year's end, we encourage you to...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Starbucks v. McKinney,1 which clarifies the legal standard governing temporary injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) against employers alleged...more
In a win for employers facing unfair labor practice charges, the Supreme Court’s holding in Starbucks v. McKinney makes it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to obtain Section 10(j) injunctions....more
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with Starbucks Corp. over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a decision that would severely delay the process for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions...more
In an eight-to-one decision this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, involving a longstanding legal battle against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB was...more
On June 13 the U.S. Supreme Court heightened the standard a court must apply to an NLRB request for a preliminary injunction against an employer accused of violating federal labor law....more
Four months ago, we told you about a brewing labor law issue – whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) must satisfy the traditional preliminary injunction standard to secure an injunction against an...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently unanimously ruled against the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. The decision reversed the NLRB’s attempt to change the standard for...more
The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, ruled that federal district courts must apply a traditional four-factor test when evaluating requests for injunctive relief brought by the National...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a...more
In an 8-1 decision involving Starbucks, the Supreme Court last week held that district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions to injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board...more