As we reported in a blog article on December 6, 2011, NLRB Republican Member Brian Hayes was being investigated by the NLRB’s Inspector General over an allegation that he had been enticed to resign his position as a Member of the Board, which at the time would have reduced the number of board members to two, leaving the Board unable to issue decisions. Mr. Hayes had earlier threatened to resign in a letter to the Chairman of the Board over certain proposed regulations being considered by the Board’s other two members. Mr. Hayes decided later and announced that he was not resigning.

In an article by Kevin Bogardus posted on the website of The Hill on January 26, 2012, it was reported that the Inspector General had completed his investigation and concluded that Mr. Hayes had not been enticed to resign his post.  “As a result of our investigative efforts, we found no evidence that enticements were made to Member Hayes to resign his position as a Board Member,” Dave Berry, the NLRB’s Inspector General wrote in a January 23 memo to Mr. Hayes and NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce. The Inspector General did note, however, that Mr. Hayes had sought employment with the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. Nevertheless, Mr. Berry found no wrongdoing by Member Hayes.  Apparently, Mr.Hayes had recused himself from any matters before the Board where the Morgan firm was involved.  By December 22, 2011, according to the report, Member Hayes advised the Morgan firm that he was no longer interested in employment with them.

This may not be the end of the matter.  The Hill also reported that U.S. Representative George Miller, a Democrat from California and the ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, wrote a letter on January 26, 2012, to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that the Justice Department initiate its own investigate of Mr.Hayes’ resignation threat.

On January 26, 2012, Sam Hananel of the Associated Press reported that Mark Pearce, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, plans to push for the issuance of more rules making it easier for unions to organize employers under the National Labor Relations Act.  The Board in December, 2011, had already issued final rules regarding election procedures to, in a limited way, eliminate some of the delays in the union representation election process, to take effect at the end of April 2012.  Earlier in the year, before Chairman Wilma Liebman’s term expired, the Board had laid out a broader agenda to speed up representation elections. 

Early this month, President Obama had made three recess appointments to the Board that have been controversial.  Republicans and business groups are contending that the appointments were unconstitutional since the Senate was not in recess. If they are right, all actions taken by the Board since that date may be void.

Pearce stated “[o]ur goal is to create a set of rules that eliminate a lot of waste of time, energy and money for the taxpayer” and “[m]y personal hope is that we take on all of these things and consider each one of these rules. We presume the constitutionality of the president’s appointments, and we go forward based on that understanding.”

The changes Pearce may be seeking in addition to those announced in December, 2011, are shown below in a chart used in June 2011, that also shows current procedure:

On January 24, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that in Fiscal Year 2011, it received a record 99,947 charges of employment discrimination.  During that year it also obtained $455.6 million in relief through its administrative program as well as litigation.  EEOC also announced that, as in Fiscal Year 2010, it resolved more charges than it took in with 112,499 case resolutions.  That is an increase of some 7% over Fiscal Year 2010.  This meant that for the first time in 10 years, the EEOC reduced its case inventory.

 The Fiscal Year 2011 data also indicate:

-5.4 million individuals benefited from changes in employment policies or practices in their workplace during the past fiscal year.

-The EEOC’s mediation program reached record levels, both in the number of resolutions – 9,831 – which is 5% more than in Fisal Year 2010 (9,362), and benefits — $170,053,021– $29 million more than Fiscal Year 2010.

-The Commission filed 300 lawsuits and its litigation efforts resulted in $91 million of relief, representing the third year in a row that the relief obtained was greater than in the preceding fiscal year.

-Some 23 of the lawsuits filed by EEOC involved systemic allegations involving large numbers of persons and an additional 67 had multiple victims (less than 20).

-The Commission also filed 261 “merits” law suits, including direct law legal actions against respondents and interventions in pending private lawsuits alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the statutes it enforces, as well as suits to enforce administrative settlements.

-EEOC’s public outreach and education programs directly reached approximately 540,000 persons.

-In the federal sector, where the EEOC has different enforcement obligations, the Commission resolved a total of 7,672 requests for hearings, securing more than $58 million in relief for parties who requested hearings.  It also resolved 4,510 appeals from final agency determinations.

Charges alleging retaliation under all the statutes the EEOC enforces were the most numerous at 37,334 charges received, or 37% of all charges.  EEOC also announced that it received 35,395 charges alleging  involving claims of race discrimination; this comprised some 35% of all charges received. While the numbers race discrimination charges declined from Fiscal Year 2010, charges with the three other most frequently-cited allegations increased:

-Sex discrimination–28,534

-Disability discrimination–25,742

-Age discrimination—23,465

EEOC’s enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, produced the highest increase in monetary relief among all of the statutes it administers: the administrative relief obtained for ADA charges increased by some 36% to $103.4 million compared to $76.1 million in Fiscal Year 2010.

In ADA cases, back impairments were the most frequently cited impairment, followed by other orthopedic impairments, depression and diabetes.

For the first full fiscal year of enforcement, EEOC received 245 charges under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information, including family medical history. Thus far, none of the GINA charges has proceeded to litigation.

The complete Fiscal Year 2011 enforcement and litigation statistics are available on the EEOC’s website at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm.

It is that time of year again!

Most employers, with some exceptions (such as those with 10 or fewer employees during all of the previous year), must post their OSHA 300 log from February 1, 2012 to April 30, 2012 “in each establishment in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted. You must ensure that the posted annual summary is not altered, defaced or covered by other material,” per OSHA regulations. 

Injury and illness recordkeeping forms must be maintained on a calendar year basis.  In addition, they must be retained for 5 years at the establishment and must be available for inspection by representatives of OSHA, or appropriate state agency, which in Kentucky is the Kentucky OSH Program. To review the industries/establishments that are exempt from having to even fill out the form take a look at:

On January 20, 2012, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, in a press release announced a revision to the Board’s existing policy regarding deferral of unfair labor practice charges to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements.  Citing concerns about delays in processing grievances to arbitration, Solomon directed Regional Directors as follows:

 Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Cases

 –Conduct Charging Party investigation, make arguable-merit determination, and determine whether arbitration is likely to be completed in less than a year.

 –If arbitration is likely to be completed in less than a year:

           –Defer and conduct quarterly reviews.

           –At the fourth quarterly review (in new and currently pending cases in deferral status), send “show cause” letters to all parties seeking an explanation of why deferral should not be revoked.

           –If the Charging Party does not respond, contact the Charging Party and any individual discriminatees before dismissing for failure to prosecute.

          –If there is insufficient reason to continue deferral, conduct a full investigation; if the charge is meritorious, submit the case to Advice; if the charge is non-meritorious, dismiss absent withdrawal.

         –If there is good reason to continue deferral, contact Advice.

 –If arbitration is not likely to be completed in less than a year:

         –Determine, in consultation with all parties, including any individual discriminatees, whether deferral is inappropriate because the delay is likely to frustrate the Board’s remedial ability or unduly disadvantage the Charging Party.

        –If deferral is deemed inappropriate, conduct a full investigation and, if the charge is meritorious, submit the case to Advice.

       –If deferral is considered appropriate despite the delay, contact Advice.

Section 8(a)(5) Cases

–Make deferral decisions and conduct quarterly reviews, as under existing policy.

–If  arbitration is not likely to be or has not been completed within a year, and the case implicates individuals’ statutory rights or involves serious economic harm to the Charging Party, the Region may at its discretion conduct a full investigation and submit the case to Advice in the same manner as Section 8(a)(1) and (3) cases.

Any questions regarding implementation of this revised policy are to be directed to the Division of Advice in Washington, D.C.

On January 13, 2012, the National Federation of Independent Business announced in a press release that it was seeking to amend its legal action filed in federal court on September 28, 2011, against the National Labor Relations Board over its new notice posting regulation, to include a new claim that the NLRB lacks the authority to enforce the notice posting regulation inasmuch as the recent recess appointments to the Board by President Obama violated the U.S. Constitution.  The new claim contends that the Senate was not in recess and therefore the President lacked the authority to make recess appointments to the Board.  Thus, if the President lacked authority to made the three recess appointments, then the NLRB will be down to just two Members and unable to function.

In a case decided January 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a teacher at a Lutheran School could not maintain an action under the employment discrimination laws arising out of her discharge from employment.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 565 U.S. ___, No. 10-553 (2012), stated that the “ministerial” exception to the application of such laws was grounded in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and should be applied to this teacher because she was a minister within the meaning of the “ministerial” exception.  This was so he reasoned because she had been “called”, trained, and functioned as a minister for at least part of the school day.  It was also noted that she had claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes based on her status as a minister. 

In reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court noted that the Sixth Circuit had given too much weight to the teacher’s secular duties during the school day and the fact that she was performing many of the same duties as secular teachers in the same school who were not covered by the “ministerial” exception.

The agreement in question prohibited an arbitrator from consolidating claims, fashioning a class or collective action, or awarding relief to a group or class of employees.  Prior to its decision, the Board had sought amicus briefs on the issues raised by the case from interested parties and received more than a dozen.

The Board’s order requires D.R. Horton to rescind the agreement or revise it to make clear to employees that they are not waiving their right to pursue a class or collective action in all other possible forums including the courts and arbitration.

This action was immediately challenged by various Republicans including House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman JohnKline(R-MN) and Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee Chairman Phil Roe (R-TN) who have formally asked the National Labor Relations Board and the White House Counsel to provide documents and information concerning the appointments. The information request sought details of the qualifications of the appointees, and president’s legal authority to grant recess appointments while the Senate is in pro forma session.

Kline, in his press release, predicted that the process followed by the President will lead to legal challenges to any decisions issued by the new Members of the Board.