Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

As we previously reported, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a proposed rule expected to significantly increase the number of employees who are eligible for overtime. Most notably, the proposed rule seeks to increase the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers from the current level of $23,660 to $50,440.

In a December 16, 2015 interview with Bloomberg BNA, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez stated he was “confident” that the final rule would be “out by the spring of next year.” This prediction falls ahead of other recent DOL estimations. In its latest regulatory agenda, released in November, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division estimated that the final rule would be published in July of 2016. And while speaking on a recent panel at the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law conference in Philadelphia, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith predicted that the new rule was not likely to appear before “late 2016.”

On December 24, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) held that rules in Whole Foods’ General Information Guide prohibiting unapproved tape and video recording in the workplace violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

A rule violates Section 8(a)(1) if it would reasonably tend to chill employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights, including the right to engage in protected concerted activity. If the rule in question explicitly restricts activity protected by Section 7, it is automatically unlawful; if it does not, the rule violates Section 8(a)(1) only if: (1) the employees would reasonably construe the rule’s language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule was applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.

On Friday, August 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2013 rule extending FLSA overtime and minimum wage protections to employees of home health care agencies who provide “companionship services” or live-in domestic care. The rule modified an exemption that was part of a 1974 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that required domestic service workers to receive overtime and minimum wage, but excluded from those requirements employees who provide companionship services or live in the home where they work. Under the 2013 rule, the exemption for companionship services and live-in care only applies to workers employed by individuals or families who are receiving the care, not to employees of third-party home care providers. The 2013 rule also narrowed the definition of companionship services. Specifically, a worker only falls under the companionship exemption if the worker is employed directly by members of a household where the worker provides “fellowship and protection” (i.e. socializing with and monitoring the safety of elderly or infirm people) or if the worker provides daily living assistance, such as dressing and grooming, in conjunction with fellowship and protection, but does not spend more than twenty percent of their time providing such assistance.

In American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens (“Piedmont Gardens”), 362 NLRB 139 (June 26, 2015), the NLRB overruled longstanding precedent protecting the confidentiality of employee witness statements and adopted a new rule that balances the union’s need for the witness statement with the employer’s “legitimate and substantial confidentiality interests.” Since 1978, employee witness statements received by employers have been automatically exempt from disclosure to unions, no matter the circumstances. Now, as a result of Piedmont Gardens, an employer who cannot establish that it has a legitimate confidentiality interest that outweighs the union’s interest must disclose witness statements to the union in full. This will likely force employers to change the way they conduct investigations.

On April 14, the National Labor Relations Board changed its rules for processing union elections. The new rules stack the deck against employers by decreasing the time between the filing of a petition and the election, which means that an employer now has less time to educate its employees about the potential impacts of unionization. The new rules also add procedural requirements that employers must address, which can distract the employer from the more important task of running its campaign. Given the significant changes, many have questioned whether it is possible to win an ...