<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Labor Law Articles (Traditional)</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/7</link>
<description>Labor law articles discussing issues involving organized labor and organized workforces.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 03:05:34 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/LaborLawArticlestraditional" /><feedburner:info uri="laborlawarticlestraditional" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
<title>COURT STRIKES DOWN NLRB’S NEW UNION ELECTION RULES</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/0GxUi4D_Hgs/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12429</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In previous Compliance Matters, we discussed the NLRB's new election rules, which took effect April 30, 2012, and the Memorandum issued by the NLRB's General Counsel to advise the Board's Regional Offices on implementing them. Those rules are now on hold because a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled on May 14 that the Board did not have the three-member quorum required to adopt the rules because one member did not participate in the vote.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/bSwicpWeY9quXFA8sDaa9IA_LHM/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/bSwicpWeY9quXFA8sDaa9IA_LHM/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/bSwicpWeY9quXFA8sDaa9IA_LHM/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/bSwicpWeY9quXFA8sDaa9IA_LHM/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/0GxUi4D_Hgs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12429</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Federal Judge Invalidates NLRB Union Election Rule </title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/oNVHxjiNDsY/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12406</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>At our Annual Employment Law Seminar, we discussed the NLRB's adoption of its so-called "quickie-election" rules, which were adopted in December 2011, following the Obama Administration's failure to obtain passage of the "Employee Free Choice Act," a statute designed to promote union organizing by providing for fast elections when a union files a petition for certification.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u2yYB_Xhs-lZ9wgmiW8cHxXYmm8/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u2yYB_Xhs-lZ9wgmiW8cHxXYmm8/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u2yYB_Xhs-lZ9wgmiW8cHxXYmm8/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/u2yYB_Xhs-lZ9wgmiW8cHxXYmm8/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/oNVHxjiNDsY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12406</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Hold On, Mr. President! Not So Fast With Those Quickie Elections </title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/tSFPDSlsRwI/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12405</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The "quickie elections" rule of the National Labor Relations Board, which took effect on April 30, is on hold after a federal court ruled Monday that the Board lacked a quorum and had not effectively promulgated the rule.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/ZQK32r9_LtETaSAwSAsog-5qoRA/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/ZQK32r9_LtETaSAwSAsog-5qoRA/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/ZQK32r9_LtETaSAwSAsog-5qoRA/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/ZQK32r9_LtETaSAwSAsog-5qoRA/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/tSFPDSlsRwI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12405</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Second Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Starbucks’ “One Union Button” Policy</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/7bwaR9NO_y8/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12401</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken some high profile hits in the federal courts in the past few weeks. As we reported recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put the NLRB’s notice posting rule on hold. Earlier this week, a federal judge also halted, for now, the NLRB’s “quickie election” rule. Late last week, the NLRB suffered another defeat when the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to enforce an NLRB decision that found Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by prohibiting its employees from wearing more than one pro-union button on their uniforms.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7v5CzHV4faYRP2e_9V10FJRYk8/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7v5CzHV4faYRP2e_9V10FJRYk8/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7v5CzHV4faYRP2e_9V10FJRYk8/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7v5CzHV4faYRP2e_9V10FJRYk8/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/7bwaR9NO_y8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12401</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>NLRB’s “Quickie Elections” Rule Struck Down – But For How Long?</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/jOJnGMnTmBw/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12399</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board is not having much luck in court lately.  Less than a month after a federal court blocked implementation of the NLRB’s mandatory workplace posting rule, Judge James E. Boasberg (an Obama appointee) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the “quickie elections” rule is invalid because it was promulgated without a quorum of NLRB members.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Y-37UejwLfA3glvtUwrEwFODFxI/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Y-37UejwLfA3glvtUwrEwFODFxI/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Y-37UejwLfA3glvtUwrEwFODFxI/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Y-37UejwLfA3glvtUwrEwFODFxI/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/jOJnGMnTmBw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12399</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Sickened By Jimmy John's Ruling? You’re Not Alone.</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/zot6QgTeUJY/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12392</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act provides both unionized and nonunionized employees the right to, among other things, communicate with one another and the public about ongoing disputes with their employers concerning their terms and conditions of employment. These Section 7 rights are not unlimited, however. Such communications may not be disparaging, reckless or maliciously untrue, or they may lose their protected status. Recent efforts by the International Workers of the World to unionize several Jimmy John's sandwich shops operated by MikLin Enterprises appear to push this standard to the breaking point.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vMxawKdBg7jUKlPZ_0k110cGiQY/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vMxawKdBg7jUKlPZ_0k110cGiQY/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vMxawKdBg7jUKlPZ_0k110cGiQY/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vMxawKdBg7jUKlPZ_0k110cGiQY/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/zot6QgTeUJY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12392</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Court Denies NLRB its "Quickie"…at Least for Now</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/MH2VSeKKoWQ/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12390</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) controversial rule aimed at streamlining union elections is invalid because it was enacted without the required three-member quorum, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/qDHpmiJAZ_a1cxcp7u-yRbtM3iY/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/qDHpmiJAZ_a1cxcp7u-yRbtM3iY/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/qDHpmiJAZ_a1cxcp7u-yRbtM3iY/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/qDHpmiJAZ_a1cxcp7u-yRbtM3iY/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/MH2VSeKKoWQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12390</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>U.S. District Court Invalidates NLRB's Controversial Final Rule Adopted Without Required Quorum</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/xB_MpWcAWMM/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12389</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>On May 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set aside a controversial final rule of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") that was designed to make it easier for unions to hold organizing elections. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. NLRB, Case No. 11-02262 (D.D.C. May 14, 2012). The District Court invalidated the rule "because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question." The final rule would "amend[] the procedures for determining whether a majority of employees wish to be represented by a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining." The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the NLRB from enforcing the final rule that was purportedly adopted electronically on December 16, 2011 by a quorum, asserting in relevant part that the signatures of two members did not constitute a quorum necessary to promulgate a final rule.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2ZGD9-1zcUzZmjvY5vEpmi7W94s/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2ZGD9-1zcUzZmjvY5vEpmi7W94s/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2ZGD9-1zcUzZmjvY5vEpmi7W94s/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/2ZGD9-1zcUzZmjvY5vEpmi7W94s/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/xB_MpWcAWMM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12389</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>NLRB Suspends New Election Case Procedures Rule in Response to Court Ruling</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/v5zzOXsQENg/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12388</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In a prior Alert dated December 28, 2011, we reported that the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB" or the "Board") had adopted a controversial new rule amending its election case procedures. The new rule took effect on April 30, 2012. The changes encompassed by the rule have been of significant concern to employers, since they threaten to significantly shorten the average election period, from the current median of 38 days to only about 21 days. Critics say that the new rule is designed to foster "ambush elections" that will put employers at a disadvantage in the campaign process and will deprive employees of gaining a full understanding of the facts before an election.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vQ3pA0_cabyDRd6166WUZ_7QwTM/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vQ3pA0_cabyDRd6166WUZ_7QwTM/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vQ3pA0_cabyDRd6166WUZ_7QwTM/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/vQ3pA0_cabyDRd6166WUZ_7QwTM/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/v5zzOXsQENg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12388</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Court Invalidates Ambush Election Rule; Board Suspends Implementation</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~3/qxINBkZVZms/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12386</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Executive Summary:  A federal trial court in the District of Columbia has held that the "ambush election" procedures published by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in December 2011 are invalid.  In response to the District Court's decision, on May 15th the Board temporarily suspended implementation of the changes to the elections process.  For now, employers can expect the same election rules and pre-election procedures that were in place prior to the rulemaking.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IuL0SriQFcKRr6tPBiEErLamMb4/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IuL0SriQFcKRr6tPBiEErLamMb4/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IuL0SriQFcKRr6tPBiEErLamMb4/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IuL0SriQFcKRr6tPBiEErLamMb4/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LaborLawArticlestraditional/~4/qxINBkZVZms" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12386</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>

</rss>

