Because federal law generally does not regulate firearms in the workplace, employers must know whether they operate in a state that has a workplace gun law and whether any specific requirements or exceptions apply to their business.
During the last several years, more than 20 states have enacted “Parking Lot” or
On February 3, 2016, Husch Blackwell Labor and Employment attorneys Terry Potter and Robert Rojas presented a webinar on Workplace Safety vs. Workplace Gun Rights. The webinar focused on the legal landscape of current gun legislation, how certain legislation affects employers and the workplace, and how to minimize any risks associated with that legislation. Specifically, the presentation covered state-specific parking lot laws and posting requirements, both of which regulate where and how an employer may prohibit weapons on its property. Parking lot laws make it illegal for employers to prohibit the possession of firearms in personal vehicles on employer-owned property while posting laws require employers to use certain signage to notify employees, customers, and others that firearms are prohibited inside an employer’s buildings or worksite.
On November 30, 2015 the DOT issued its final rule prohibiting coercion of commercial drivers, which expands the current whistle-blowing provisions jointly administered by the Department of Labor and the Department of Transportation via a Memo of Understanding issued last year. The main point of expansion is that now a covered driver is protected not only from discharge, discipline or discrimination for engaging in certain protected activities (focusing on safety regulations issued for this industry), but it now includes “coercion” of such drivers not only as to safety violations, but also as to any violations of commercial regulations that would apply to “motor carriers, shippers, receivers or transportation intermediaries.” The regulations are quite vague regarding what “coercion” shall consist of, stating the DOT will investigate any “non-frivolous” claim that a motor carrier, shipper, receiver or transportation intermediary, or their respective agents, officers, or representatives, have threatened to or actually withheld business, employment or work opportunities from, or taken any adverse employment action against, a driver in order to induce the driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle under conditions in which the driver would be required to violate one or more of the regulations that are codified within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
The General Counsel’s office of the NLRB issued a memo this week setting forth its position on a variety of different matters as to the new rules and regulations regarding the election process which will be effective April 14, 2015. These are the first major changes in the election process since the 1930’s and they will be significant. Most importantly, the timeline from the point of the filing of a petition to holding an election is greatly compressed. In theory, there could be an election conducted as soon as seventeen days after the petition is filed with the Agency. Indeed, the General Counsel’s office has indicated to the Regional Offices that they expect elections to proceed (either by stipulation or post hearing) in the seventeen day to thirty day time frame. The latter number reflecting those situations in which there is a hearing held and there needs to be a ruling by the Regional office.
This month the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District issued an opinion which slammed the door, once again, on the ability of employers to enter into an agreement with their employees whereby parties agree to bypass the court system in favor of private arbitration. In Jimenez v. Cintas Corporation, S.W.3d (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) the Court found that there was insufficient consideration to support such an agreement due to lack of mutuality of obligation and the at will status of Jimenez’s employment. This is not the first time in which a Missouri court has addressed this issue. In Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) these concepts were also addressed. However, in Morrow, the issue of consideration was in reference to continued employment, not initial employment, which was the case in Cintas. However, even more concerning was the fact that Cintas found that since the employer alone was exempt from arbitrating alleged violations of the non-compete provisions the agreement lacked mutuality.
While employers subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) must provide unpaid sick leave to employees meeting certain requirements, no federal law requires employers to provide their employees with paid sick leave. However, employers — including those already providing their employees with paid time off (PTO) — should be aware of the recent spate of state laws and local ordinances permitting employees to earn paid sick leave time.
The last year or so has not been a good one for the NLRB. Time and time again the courts have shot down the Board in a number of matters, including the Board’s notice posting rule, its attempt to modify its own election rules for processing representation petitions, as well as D.R. Horton being denied enforcement and otherwise ignored by every court of appeals which has reviewed the issue.
Congratulations to our client National Information Solutions Cooperative (NISC) for receiving this wonderful award. Nice things do happen to great people.
As promised, the NLRB has revised and will reissue proposed rules on expedited elections tomorrow in the Federal Register. No doubt the legal battles will pick up once again over this hotly contested issue.
Yes, the NLRB did voluntarily dismiss its appeal in Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, the case in which the District Court found that the Board’s expedited representation petition rules were invalid. But do not get too excited, for as previously posted, the Board has already established that its primary agenda item for the upcoming year are these very rules.