Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prepared by
313.965.0350 www.iriconsultants.com
FLORIDA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
LABOR ACTIVITY UPDATE
February 11, 2015
313.965.0350 www.iriconsultants.com
February 11, 2015
FHA Labor Relations Update
Agenda
§ Labor Relations Update q National q Florida
§ The Impact of Union Elections on HCAHPS, Readmissions, and Employee Engagement
§ NLRB Update
1
NATIONAL LABOR UPDATE
3
NNU Strikes Again
§ NNU continues to use short-duration § strikes as a bargaining tactic
q Washington Hospital Center (December 2014) q San Bernardino County (December 2014) q Providence Hospital Washington, D.C. (November 2014)
§ Authorization votes q Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital (February 2015) q University of Chicago Medical Center (January 2015) q Kaiser Permanente (January 2015) q Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital (December 2014)
4
More Healthcare Strikes
§ Unite Here staged a six day walkout at Kaiser Permanente in Hawaii q Primarily about wage issues during negotiations
§ NUHW struck at Kaiser in California q Thousands of mental health workers walked off the job at
35 locations
§ NNU, SEIU and others continue to push for ratios at the state level q DC: Bill appears dead; no action since 2013 q Massachusetts passed a ratios law in 2014
¨ Implementation still being worked out ¨ Independent panel has proposed ICU ratios first
q Oregon Nurses Association is promoting bill that would give nurses “as much say as administrators” in staffing
q In Washington state, SEIU is pushing for minimum staffing at nurses homes
5
Staffing Ratios
§ NNU is promoting a state law against workplace violence in Florida q Held a rally in Tampa in January
§ CNA/NNU pressuring state authorities in California to approve Daughters of Charity sale to Prime Healthcare q SEIU UHW-West vehemently opposes q Retribution for Prime Healthcare not signing on to CHA-
SEIU deal § NNU successfully used Ebola as wedge issue, winning new
safety regulations in California
6
Union Political Activity
FLORIDA LABOR UPDATE – ORLANDO HEALTH
Joint NNU/NNOC-Florida and 1199SEIU Campaign § Major campaign begins in August 2013 § Two unions partnered to target the 8-hospital, then-15,000-employee
Orlando health system § Shift differential cut (up to 50%) was the triggering event § Employees delivered change.org petition with 5,000 signatures to CEO § Coverage on major news outlets
8
Union Tactics
§ Distribution of more than 125 union flyers and union items (stickers, buttons, bracelets)
§ Almost-daily distribution of food for months § Off-duty employee organizers on hospital
property § Union organizers presence on property in
cafeteria and and in parking decks, street corners etc.
§ Challenging employer policies and enforcement q Solicitation/Distribution q Access – off duty team members
9
Union Tactics
§ Union meetings § Home visits; Calls to home/mobile phones § Social media § Media relations § ADO forms § Safe staffing survey § CE courses § Rallies, a candlelight vigil and a community forum
10
NNU Tested Orlando Health Policies and Enforcement § Non-solicitation policy
q Disciplines for giving cards to other employees while working and in patient care areas
§ Non-distribution policy q Employees handing out union literature in work areas q Employee bulletin boards q Union organizers distributing on Orlando Health property q NNU organizers distributing food in cafeterias q Trespassing
11
NNU Filed Dozens of ULP Charges
12
ORLANDO HEALTH’S RESPONSE
Leadership Education and Campaign Prep
§ Executive leadership education and briefings § All leader training on NLRA § Weekly meetings with leaders § Manager bulletin board and talking points § Special training for security and administrative supervisors § Monthly updates for the Orlando Health board § Readiness Manual § Expedited Election Strategy
14
Team Member Education
§ Bulletin Boards in all break rooms § Periodic “huddle talks” § Employee handouts and emails § Letters from the CEO § “Your Signature is Valuable” sessions conducted by HR and operations § Collective bargaining training § NLRA education sessions (English and Spanish) conducted by HR § Employee video testimonials § Campaign website
15
Non-Board ULP Settlement
§ Confidential terms § Overview
q 75-day access period to pre-selected Orlando Health break rooms
q Access limited to union-selected, off-duty employees…not union organizers
16
Preparing for Access
§ Timed communications cascade q In-person meetings q Meeting-in-a-Bag for managers
¨ Support sessions for managers q Email letter announcement and FAQ q E-learning for employees q Posting of materials on Orlando Health intranet q Elevator speech q Press release (upon request)
17
The Result of the Settlement
§ Orlando Health response and proactive communications was more than the union was prepared for
§ Union surprised about the level of resistance from team members § Team members did not want union supporters in their break rooms § Union activity virtually stopped
q On site presence q Free lunches q Handouts q Home visits
§ Several internal union supporters resigned § Orlando Health remains on alert and has created a comprehensive plan
to remain proactive
18
THE IMPACT OF UNION ELECTIONS ON HCAHPS,
READMISSIONS, AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Key Objectives of the Study
§ Objectively understand the impact of union elections on important outcomes in healthcare: q HCAHPS, Readmissions, and Employee Engagement
§ Use the CMS database to examine healthcare facilities and outcomes across the U.S. and over 120 healthcare facilities that went through union elections over the last two years
§ Provide a roadmap for healthcare leaders to build a workforce strategy around: q Preparation, Prevention, Post-Election Actions
20
Introduction
§ Medicare and Medicaid Reimbursement dollars are key to the operating effectiveness in healthcare organizations across the U.S.
§ HCAHPS and Readmissions are in the reimbursement mix § New legislation (quickie elections) will make keeping unions out even
more difficult § A true business case needs to be made to leaders at all levels around the
impact of union attempts/elections and the consequences of losing those elections
21
Findings
§ Healthcare organizations experiencing a union election significantly underperform other healthcare organizations on HCAHPS and Readmissions over multiple years of study q Average HCAHPS impact of between 5-20 percentiles q Total Reimbursement impact is significant
§ If unionized, union employees score significantly lower on employee engagement scores across healthcare q Negative impact on key outcomes q Adverse effect on attaining Magnet Status
22
Union Election Impact
*CMS HCAHPS data is consolidated into a 3-point scale, thus smaller differences are amplified when recalculated into the normal scale
All Healthcare Had Union Election Difference Potential Percentile
Impact
2013/2012 2.61 2.54 -0.07 10-20 pts
Nurse Communication 2.72 2.68 -0.04 5-15 pts
Doctor Communication 2.76 2.72 -0.04 5-15 pts
Receive Help 2.54 2.47 -0.07 10-20 pts
Pain Management 2.62 2.59 -0.03 4-12 pts
Medications Explained 2.41 2.39 -0.02 4-12 pts
Cleanliness 2.62 2.57 -0.05 5-15 pts
Quietness 2.47 2.39 -0.08 12-22 pts
23
Readmission Impact
All Healthcare Had Union Election Difference
2013/2012 20.4 20.8 -0.4
§ Last year, there were 2 million readmissions § Government levied fines of $428 million just last year § Readmission cost to Medicare is $17B per year
24
Employee Engagement Impact
Non-Union Unionized Difference
Accountability 3.78 3.52 -0.26
Senior Leader Alignment 3.8 3.48 -0.33
Engagement 4.11 3.76 -0.35
Management/Leadership 3.9 3.58 -0.32
Mission/Values 3.9 3.59 -0.31
Climate of Safety 3.98 3.74 -0.25
Teamwork 3.84 3.60 -0.24
Analysis of over 200 healthcare organizations in the U.S.
25
Key Strategies for Long-Term Success
Leverage Most Advanced Technology and Proven Expertise
Ongoing Leadership Development Employee Surveys
Prev
entio
n Employee Surveys
Leadership Development
Organizational Development
Labor Skills Assessments
Structured Hiring
Prep
arat
ion Labor Readiness
Assessment
Communications
Cam
paig
n Online Daily Action Planning
for all Leaders
Onsite Campaign Consulting
Post
-Ele
ctio
n Negotiation Skills Assessment
Ongoing Leadership
Development Employee Surveys
26
NLRB UPDATE - INCLUDING
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BOARD’S NEW ELECTION RULE
The NLRB – December 15, 2014
Mark Gaston Pearce (D) Nominated as Chairman Term expiration:_________________________________________________________August 27, 2018
Phillip Miscimarra (R) Term expiration:_____________________________________________ December 16, 2017 (Seat of Former Member, Brian Hayes)
Kent Hirozawa (D) Term expiration: _________________________________August 27, 2016 (Seat of Former Member, Craig Becker)
Harry I. Johnson (R) Term expiration: ___________________ August 27, 2015 (Seat of Former Member, Terence Flynn)
Nancy Schiffer (D) Term expiration: ____December 16, 2014
28
The NLRB General Counsel
§ Richard Griffin confirmed by Senate q Was one of the NLRB recess appointees challenged under Noel
Canning q Former General Counsel for the International Union of Operating
Engineers q Served on served on the Board of Directors for the AFL-CIO
Lawyers Coordinating Committee
29
New NLRB Member: Lauren McFerran
§ Lauren McFerran was nominated by President Obama in November after GOP voiced strong objection to his nomination of Sharon Block q Served as Chief Labor Counsel to Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions § She was confirmed by the Senate on December 8, 2014 – her term runs
to December 16, 2019 § Her confirmation maintains 3-2 Democratic majority on the NLRB
q Expect NLRB to continue with pro-labor agenda moving forward
30
Employer Email – New Rights for Employees
§ NLRB General Counsel urged the Board to adopt a position in the Purple Communication case, that employees have a statutory right under the NLRA to utilize employer email systems for union activity
§ The NLRB in a 3-2 decision on December 12, 2014, adopted the General Counsel’s position
§ As a result of this decision, employees will have an opportunity to communicate with one another using an employer’s email system for a wide variety of union related activities, including organizing activities
§ Unions and the outside Union organizers still do not have the right to use the Employer’s Internal Email system.
31
Employer Email – New Rights for Employees
§ Unions should also benefit by this ruling by gaining increased access to employees by working with internal employee organizers to communicate to potential voting unit employees in organizational campaigns and also to communicate with union members regarding contract administration matters, including collective bargaining situations
§ This decision raises not only substantial union related issues, but also a variety of privacy and confidential employee information issues, including the potential for internal employee information to be communicated to third parties
§ For more information, go to the Jones Day Labor Blog http://www.jonesdaylaborblog.com/?=264
32
NLRB Changes “Deferral to Arbitration” Test – The Babcock and Wilcox Decision § Major changes in Board’s standards for deferring NLRB action in favor
of arbitration awards and grievance/arbitration procedures § Board will now defer to an arbitral decision if the party urging deferral
shows: q Arbitrator was explicitly authorized to decide the unfair labor practice
issue q Arbitrator was presented with and considered the statutory issue, or
was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral; and q Board law reasonably permits the award as opposed to is not
repugnant to the Act
33
NLRB Changes “Deferral to Arbitration” Test – The Babcock and Wilcox Decision
§ The decision overturns 30 years of Board precedent § Employers need to exercise considerable care in selecting arbitrators in
NLRB deferral cases as a result of this decision and insure that the selected arbitrator has a good working knowledge of the NLRA
§ In a discipline case even where there is just cause, arbitrator must find the discipline was not for protected activities.
34
“Joint Employer” Relationships
§ NLRB reviewing, at the request of its General Counsel, the definition of “Joint Employer” relationships q The General Counsel is urging the Board to discard the current
substantial “direct and immediate control” over the essential terms and conditions of employment of the subcontractor/franchisee employees test which has been in place for approximately 30 years
q New test urged by G.C. unexercised potential to control working conditions or “industrial realties” otherwise makes putative joint employer essential to meaningful bargaining with those employees, then joint employers
35
“Joint Employer” Relationships
§ The above issues are before the NLRB in the Browning-Ferris case § The definition of what constitutes a joint employer relationship under the
NLRA is also pending in a number of unfair labor practice 13 complaints against McDonald’s and scheduled for trial on March 30
36
Narrowing of the Independent Contractor Definition § The Board in its recent case involving FedEx narrowed the definition of
the relationship between individuals and employers that constitute “independent contractor” situations and thereby expanded to scope of the Act to cover many individuals currently exempted
§ The Board in its ruling noted that while there may be contractual relationship language between FedEx and individual drivers to support an independent contractor finding the facts of the case did not establish that such individuals had actual significant entrepreneurial opportunity for gain or loss because of restraints imposed by FedEx
§ This is an important area for employers to consider – there are numerous federal and state regulatory initiatives are under way to examine misclassification issues in this area
37
Narrowing of the Independent Contractor Definition
§ An independent contractor misclassification by an employer can result in considerable liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act, state and federal tax statues, employer benefit plan coverage in addition to liability under the NLRA
§ Employers should regularly monitor which individuals they are classifying as independent contractors and review the facts and circumstances associated with such relationships
§ For more information go to the Jones Day Labor Blog http://www.jonesdaylaborblog.com/?p=253
38
New Election Rule – Announced
§ Announced by NLRB on December 12, 2014, before NLRB Member Nancy Schiffer’s term expired on December 16, 2014
§ Adopted on a 3-2 vote with three Democrat members voting to adopt - NLRB Chair Mark Pearce, former Board Member Schiffer and Member Kent Hirozawa voting in the majority. The two Republican Members, Philip Miscimarra and Harry Johnson dissented
§ Final Rule generally follows proposed Rule published earlier this year – 733 page document
§ New Rule to be effective April 14, 2015
39
New NLRB Election Rule – Key Points
§ New NLRB Election Rule would “streamline” election process: q Shorter time frames for elections (irrational need for
speed?) q Prevent employers from litigating certain issues before
an election q Curtail ability to challenge pre-election rulings by NLRB
Regional Directors q Permits petitioning unions to obtain personal email, cell
phone and home phone numbers of voting unit employees
q Substantially increases authority of Board Regional Directors and decreases Board Member oversight of the election process
40
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing of the Petition § Union to file petition with NLRB Regional Office including “showing of
interest” documentation, i.e., the 30 percent employee signature requirement – change from prior practice of permitting the union to have 48 hours after petition filing to furnish “showing of interest” documentation
§ Petition filing can be made electronically to appropriate NLRB Regional Office by union
§ Union to also fax a copy of the filed petition to the employer
41
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing of the Petition § Employer required to post, including electronically, initial Notice of
Election to employees within two (2) working days of receipt of Board’s new notice of Petition for Election form (not currently required to be posted)
§ Failure of the employer to properly post such notice could result in an election results being overturned and a new election ordered
42
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing of the Statement Position (SOP)
§ An employer will be required to file a Statement of Position (SOP) by noon before the day of the scheduled hearing
§ The SOP will be required to contain a statement of the employer’s position regarding the proposed unit, any issues the employer desires to litigate at the hearing, a listing of the names of employees in the proposed unit and their classification, shift and work location
§ The SOP shall also contain the employer’s position on any jurisdiction issues, supervisor issues, managerial issues and confidential employee issues. Employer also must include in the SOP proposed date(s), time(s) and location(s) for the election
43
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing of the Statement Position (SOP)
§ SOP also should include employer position on the following issues: q Election bar, contract bar and recognition bar q Eligibility period for voting unit employees q List of employees employers desire to exclude from the proposed unit q List of employees to be added to the petitioned-for unit q Labor organization status q Employer business closing or expansion information q Seasonal employee issues q Professional employees to be excluded q Any issue regarding guards q Any other issue raised by the petition
44
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing of the Statement Position (SOP)
§ If the employer fails to raise in its SOP any of the above matters it will be foreclosed, absent special permission from a Regional Director, from raising such matters at the hearing and may also have been deemed to have waived its right to raise such issues in any post election proceedings
§ The SOP is a new “strict pleading” procedure that employers and their counsel will have to pay particular attention to and be prepared to properly file prior to the commencement of the hearing
§ The only “positive” news for employers regarding the new SOP requirement is that unions will also be foreclosed from raising issues at a hearing or on an appeal if it fails to respond to issues the employer raises in its SOP
45
New NLRB Election Rule – The Hearing
§ A hearing (if any) will be held eight (8) days after the union has filed its petition – regional director may postpone the opening of the hearing up to two (2) business days on request of a party showing special circumstances, and for more than two (2) business days upon request of a party showing extraordinary circumstances.
§ The hearing officer shall only permit parties to raise issues that have been included in their SOP and such issues are limited to only whether there exists a “question concerning representation.” Questions concerning supervisory, managerial and confidential employee status generally will not be permitted to be raised at the hearing.
46
New NLRB Election Rule – The Hearing
§ The hearing officer, in consultation with the Regional Director, will make rulings on evidentiary issues and rulings on whether issues can be considered at the hearing – initial 20% test not adopted
§ Board has historically used a 10% standard regarding whether to permit the litigation of unit placement and similar voting eligibility issues
§ The concept of “offers of proof” will be regularly utilized § The filing of post-hearing briefs, except by special permission by the
Regional Director, will not be permitted. Oral argument will be permitted at the conclusion of the hearing regarding the parties’ position
§ A hearing once started shall by the new Rule continue in subsequent days thereafter until concluded – motions for continuances, will not, as a general rule be granted
47
New NLRB Election Rule – The Hearing
§ Under the new Rule, the scope of a hearing will be substantially reduced and the right to file a post hearing brief, which as a general rule has been filed seven (7) or more days after the conclusion of the hearing, is as a practical matter eliminated
§ Failure of the Board to resolve pre-election supervisory, managerial and other unit placement issues presents serious legal and practical issues for the employer – what if an individual believed by the employer to be a supervisor is found post-election to be a non-supervisory employee? – the conduct of such individual during the election on behalf of the employer may be grounds for a re-run election
48
New NLRB Election Rule – Requests for Board Review § The new Rule eliminates the automatic rights of parties in stipulated
elections situations to file a request for review with the Board – in the past stipulated election agreements have been the way that a high percentage of representation cases have been processed by the Board
§ Requests for review of regional director decisions may be filed at any time during the hearing or within 14 days after a final disposition of the case – requests will only be granted for compelling reasons
§ Under the new Rule parties will have an extremely limited opportunity to obtain Board review of pre-election determinations by Board Regional Directors and hearing officers
49
New NLRB Election Rule – Requests for Board Review § The new Rule increases the possibility that individual regions of the
Board will reach different decisions on un-reviewed results in factually identical or similar circumstances
§ The new Rule substantially increases the authority of Regional Directors who are not subject to Senate confirmation and substantially removes Board members from their oversight role in representation cases
§ The new Rule may increase the number of “test of certification” cases where employers refuse to bargain after the union prevails in a Board conducted election, because the employer could not obtain Board review of Regional Director voting unit issues
50
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing the Voter Unit Information – Excelsior List Issues § Under the new Rule an employer will only have two (2) working days
after issuance of the Regional Director’s decision and direction of election to file the following information with the Board’s regional office and with the Union: q Name of all voting unit employees and their home address q Classification, shift and work location of such employees q Personal email address of voting unit employees (if available) q Personal telephone numbers of voting unit employees (if available)
§ The new Rule is a substantial change from past practice as employers had seven (7) calendar days after the direction of election to file voting unit information – such information also did not have to include personal telephone numbers and email addresses of such employees nor classification, shift or work location
51
New NLRB Election Rule – Filing the Voter Unit Information – Excelsior List Issues § This aspect of the new Rule places considerable pressure on employers,
especially in cases where there is a large number of voting unit employees including multi-site voting unit situations
§ Failure of the employer to meet the requirements of timely submitting the voting unit information can result in the overturning of results of an election
§ This aspect of the new Rule also raises substantial employee privacy issues – work email and work telephone numbers may be required in future (see p. 118 of Rule)
§ The Board majority failed to include in the new Rule any remedy for union misuse of employee personal information
§ Board also failed to include opt-in/opt-out procedure for employees regarding personal information
§ Board left open the distinct possibility that it may in the future also require employers to furnish to a petitioning union work email and work telephone numbers 52
New NLRB Election Rule – The Union’s Decision as to Whether to Waive the 10-Day Period § Unions have the opportunity after the issuance of a direction of an
election to have a minimum of 10 calendar days after the direction of an election and before the holding of an election to review and utilize voting list information in their campaigns
§ Unions however can waive this 10-day rule to accelerate the time period in which an election is held
§ A union’s decision on this point will have a substantial impact on the timing of the election and a waiver of such 10-day period may result in elections being held on the 10th or 11th day after the petition for election has been filed
53
New NLRB Election Rule – Reduced Election Timeframe § Current medium timeframe from filing a petition to election is 38 days
(average is 35 days) with elections generally held in contested petitioned cases between 42/47 days
§ 94.3 percent of all elections are currently being held within 56 days from the filing of the petition
§ “Rule squarely rejects any reasonable minimum time between petition filing and election: and our colleagues explicitly disclaim responsibility even to identify an appropriate target timeframe that should – or will – result from the Rule” – page 529 of the dissent
54
New NLRB Election Rule – Reduced Election Timeframe § Under the new Rule Regional Directors are to set elections at the “earliest
date practical” § The new Rule eliminates the 25 – 30 day period after the decision and
direction of election before an election can be held – this aspect of the Rule has the greatest impact on the timeframe from petition filing to election date – elimination from this time period substantially curtails in the ability of employees to become educated regarding the issues associated with union representation
55
The Election and the Objection Time Period § Even if an employer did not attempt to mitigate unit placement issues, its
representatives can still challenge voters on such issues as supervisory status, managerial status and confidential employees status – the challenge ballot procedure has not been changed by the new Rule
§ As a general rule, an election will go forward and ballots counted – they’ll no longer be a stay of election or the impoundment of ballots
§ The period for any party filing an objection to election remains at seven (7) calendar days under the new Rule, any party filing an objection must provide evidence on or before the seventh day supporting its objection – this is a change from prior practice which gave objecting parties an additional seven days to file their evidence supporting their objection
§ For more information go to the Jones Day Labor Blog http://www.jonesdaylaborblog.com/?p=284
56
New NLRB Election Rule – Other Issues
§ The new Rule when combined with the Board’s Specialty Healthcare overwhelming community interest test provides new opportunities for unions to have organizing success
§ The substantially abbreviated nature of the hearing process under the new Rule will make it virtually impossible for employers to overcome the application of the Board’s new overwhelming community of interest test regarding the composition of the voting unit
§ A union’s ability to obtain an election in “micro” or “proliferated” units in a very short time period after the filing of a petition is a substantial advantage
§ The Board’s new Rule, as previously noted, raises substantial employee privacy issues and may be the “Achilles Heel” of the new Rule
57
New NLRB Election Rule – Other Issues
§ The new Rule would appear to apply to all types of elections including decertification elections
§ The new Rule contains only minor changes in the Board’s “blocking charge procedure” including a new requirement that any party filing an unfair labor practice charge which would block the holding of an election must submit a summary of its evidence and the names of its witnesses at the time it files such blocking charge – much more should have been done in this area as blocking charges are often the major source of election delay
58
New NLRB Election Rule – Other Issues
§ New Rule may result in unions obtaining employee personal telephone and personal email addresses, then withdrawing their petition, using such information to further campaign, and then re-filing a petition for an election at a later date
§ Employer litigation challenge was filed January 5, 2015 by Chamber of Commerce and other organizations in District Court for District of Columbia
59
Example of Current NLRB Election Procedure Timeline
Day 7 Day 14
Petition filed and faxed by union to the NLRB Regional Office and Regional Office faxes to employer
Positions of parties discussed and hearing held if necessary – Extension of hearing date only permitted with exceptional circumstances
Brief Filed Decision and Direction of Election issues by Regional Office
Day 17 Day 24
Excelsior (voting list) filed by employer with Regional Office, which forwards to the union
During this 42-47 day period after Decision and Direction of Election, the parties have a right to file a request for review with the Board of election-related rulings by the Regional Office
NLRB Notice of Election posted by employer at the voting location at least three days before the election
Election Day 42-47
60
NLRB Proposed New Election Rule with No Post-Hearing Brief
Petition filed by the union with the appropriate NLRB Regional Office – including “showing of interest” documentation and a copy of the petition faxed by the union to the employer. Board Regional Office issues Notice of Hearing
Employer to “immediately” post (including electronically) Initial Notice of Petition for Election within two (2) business days after service of Notice of Hearing from the Regional Office. Failure of employer to properly post this notice may be grounds for a re-run election.
Regional Office representatives request to parties to identify and resolve any voting unit issues – Parties required to file a Statement of Position (1) by noon the day before the hearing
Earliest day a hearing can be held (2)
Day 8
(1) Employer’s Statement of Position (SOP) to be filed by noon before the hearing date and is to include commerce information, name of voting unit employees, any issue to be litigated, and the employees’ work location, shift and classification. SOP also is to include the employer’s position on the appropriateness of the unit and suggested dates, times, and location of the election and the cut-off eligibility date and served on the union and the Regional Director. (2) The hearing only is to involve “questions concerning representation.” At any time during the hearing, if the hearing officer determines that the only issue remaining in dispute concerns the eligibility or inclusion of individuals to be eligible to vote, the hearing officer in consultation with regional director, will immediately close the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, parties would be permitted to make oral arguments on the record. Parties would be permitted to file post-hearing briefs only with the permission of the regional director and within the time permitted by and subject to, any other limitations imposed by the regional director.
Day 7
61
NLRB Proposed New Election Rule with No Post-Hearing Brief
Direction of Election can be issued at any time after completion of the hearing
Day 8/10
Hypothetical Dates for Regional Director Direction of Election – Completion of a Hearing transcript could cause the direction of an election to occur at a later date
Day 10/11 Election if union
waives 10 day period
Two (2) work days for employer to prepare Excelsior or voting list and submit to the union and the Board Regional Office – list to include voting unit employees home address, personal telephone number, including cell phone number and personal email address (if available) and the employees’ work location, shift and classification. NLRB Final Notice of Election to be posted including electronically
Day 20/21 Election if union
does not waive the 10 day period
62
NLRB Proposed New Election Rule with No Post-Hearing Brief
Day 27/28
Election objections and any supporting evidence must be filed by objecting party
63
What to Expect in 2015
§ Joint Employer Issues q BPI decision expected q Continued Development of McDonald’s Litigation
§ Access Issues – Roundy’s q Off duty employees q Non employees
§ Northwestern Football Players q Employees or students
64
What to Expect in 2015 § Continued NLRB involvement in Non-Union workplaces
q Social Media Issues q Employer Rules/Policies q Insignia, button badges and dress code issues
§ Continued disposition of Noel Canning backlog § Potential approval for unions to file electronic signatures on
union authorization cards –the majority in approving the new rule directed the NLRB General Counsel to develop guidelines permitting unions to electronically file union authorization cards with employee’s electronic signatures
65
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
313.965.0350 www.iriconsultants.com
IRI Consultants 3290 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 142 Troy, MI 48084 www.iriconsultants.com 313.965.0350
Jim Trivisonno [email protected]
Scott Mondore [email protected]
Roger King [email protected]
