HR That Works Blog

The National Labor Relations Board has agreed to postpone the effective date of its employee rights notice-posting rule at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule. The Board’s ruling states that it has determined that postponing the effective date of the rule would facilitate the resolution of the legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule. The new implementation date is April 30, 2012.  

Most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice on the new implementation date of April 30. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, www.nlrb.gov, which has additional information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.

The National Labor Relations Board has adopted a final rule amending its election case procedures to reduce unnecessary litigation and delays. The rule will be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 22, and is due to take effect on April 30, 2012.

The rule is primarily focused on procedures followed by the NLRB in the minority of cases in which parties can’t agree on issues such as whether the employees covered by the election petition are an appropriate voting group. In such cases, the matter goes to a hearing in a regional office and the NLRB Regional Director decides the question and sets the election. 

Going forward, the regional hearings will be expressly limited to issues relevant to the question of whether an election should be conducted. The hearing officer will have the authority to limit testimony to relevant issues, and to decide whether or not to accept post-hearing briefs.

Also, all appeals of regional director decisions to the Board will be consolidated into a single post-election request for review. Parties can currently appeal regional director decisions to the Board at multiple stages in the process.

In addition, the rule makes all Board review of Regional Directors’ decisions discretionary, leaving more final decisions in the hands of career civil servants with long experience supervising elections.

Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Member Craig Becker voted in favor of the rule (Democrat appointees), which was prepared following a public meeting in late November. Member Brian Hayes (Republican Appointee) dissented from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and voted at the November 30 public meeting against proceeding with publication of a final rule.  The final rule provides the opportunity for publication of a separate dissenting statement prior to the effective date of the rule.

In recent years, only about 10 percent of NLRB election cases have gone through the hearing process. Such elections have been held on average 101 days after the election petition was filed with a regional office.

“This rule is about giving all employees who have petitioned for an election the right to vote in a timely manner and without the impediment of needless litigation,” said Chairman Pearce. In other words, accelerate the unionization process.

The amendments to the election case procedures in the new rule were drawn from a more comprehensive proposal put forward by the Board in June. More than 65,000 comments were submitted following publication of the broader proposal in the Federal Register. In a discussion introducing the new rule, the Board majority explained that it was holding for further deliberation parts of that proposal that had generated the most debate while moving ahead with parts considered relatively “less controversial.”

Click here to read the final rule and introduction, and here to read a description of the amendments.

Click here for website version.

Over 65,000 written comments were received by the NLRB in response to its proposed ambush election rules, which would result in holding elections as quickly as ten days after the filing of a petition. The Board had open hearings for two days in July to hear comments from business and labor about the proposed rules. In our July issue of the Employment Law Bulletin, we predicted that while the Board would be very hospitable and act like it truly cared about concerns expressed by the business community, it would move forward with establishing the rules in the manner they were proposed.

In an effort to issue the final rule before the Board has only two members and therefore would be unable to do so, Board Chair Mark Pearce held a vote among the three Board members–himself, Craig Becker and Brian Hayes–yesterday, November 30, 2011, to approve a scaled-back version of the original ambush election rules. (Becker’s term expires at the end of December. Hayes, a Republican and former Senate staffer, has aggressively and publicly opposed the Board’s notice posting rule and these proposed rules.)

As a result of yesterday’s 2-1 vote in favor of changing the Board’s election rules, some but not all of the rules in the original proposal are now slated for a final vote, some time before Becker’s term expires and after the final rules are circulated to all three Board members.

Yesterday’s vote represented at least a brief retreat from the original rules, which would have resulted in union elections being held as quickly as ten days after the filing of a petition. Instead, the new rules narrow the scope of pre-election hearings, virtually eliminate pre-election appeals, and strike down the current rule providing that a vote cannot be held sooner than 25 days after the Board’s Regional Director issues a Direction of Election. Although the final rule is a significant step back from forcing a union vote within ten days of a petition, it certainly opens the door for Regional Directors to schedule union votes much sooner after the petition is filed. Indeed, the clear intent of the rule is to encourage elections within the first 25 days after the filing of a petition, much sooner than the current average of 38 days between the filing of a petition and a union vote.

Member Hayes has spoken out against the Board’s attempt to implement these rules without a clear quorum and has even hinted that he may resign prior to the final approval of these rules, which would prevent a two member Board from implementing what’s left of the ambush rules.

As we have stated previously, we expect ambush election rules–in some form–to become effective, whether it’s a result of this Board’s action or actions by the Board after new appointees are seated. Either way, whatever action this Board takes is likely to be challenged in court.

Article courtesy of Worklaw® Network firm Lehr, Middlebrooks & Vreeland, P.C.

We’ve been getting a lot of Hotline queries regarding holiday pay. Here’s the basic Federal law on it:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require payment for time not worked, such as vacations or holidays (federal or otherwise). These benefits are generally a matter of agreement between an employer and an employee (or the employee’s representative).

On a government contract to which the labor standards of the McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) apply, holiday and/or vacation fringe benefit requirements are stated in the SCA wage determinations in contracts that exceed $2,500.

On a government contract to which the labor standards of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts apply, holiday pay and/or vacation pay is required for specific classifications of workers only if the Davis-Bacon wage determination in the covered contract specifies such requirements for workers employed in those classifications.

There is no requirement that employers have to pay overtime to eligible employees for holiday work, unless the employees work more than 40 hours in the same workweek, or 8 hours that day in California. Also paid holidays don’t count towards the 40-hour overtime rule.

Remember, exempt employees always get paid for holidays if they worked any portion of the week.

Here’s California FAQ on it: www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Holidays.htm. The theme is the same in the other states as well. Many state regulations don’t mention it at all.

Colorado

Colorado wage law does not require nor prohibit any paid holidays, and does not require nor prohibit any extra pay for working on holidays. When an employee is paid for a non-work holiday, the holiday hours do not count towards overtime unless actual work was performed on the holiday.

Illinois

Q: Am I entitled to holiday pay in Illinois?
A: No, unless by employment contract or agreement.

New York

Q: Must an employer pay workers for holidays, sick time and/or vacations?
A: Under the New York State Labor Law, payment for time not actually worked is not required unless the employer has established a policy to grant such pay. Holidays, sick time and/or vacations fall under ‘time not worked.’ When an employer does decide to create a benefit policy, that employer is free to impose any conditions they choose.

 

Hope that helps!

The Case of Salas v. Sierra Chemical (2011) caused quite a stir because the appellate court dismissed a disability discrimination claim of undocumented alien based on unclean hands. Now the California Supreme Court will decide this far ranging issue. The appellate court essential took much of the teeth out of a legislative amendment to protect illegal aliens against discriminatory and other illegal workplace conduct…regardless of their status. We’ll be keeping an eye out for this one!

Docket
Court of Appeal Opinion

“All anyone asks for is a chance to work with pride.” —Dr. W. Edwards Deming

This issue discusses:

• Editor’s Column: Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) – New and Improved
• Can You Cut Benefits Costs by Moving Employees to Medicare?
• Quantum HR
• Disability Employment Statistics
• Medical Documentation: Think About What’s Needed and Stop There
• ‘Bad Haircut’ and Unequal Policy Enforcement Lead to Trouble for Employer
• Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation

We have also provided you with the Form of the Month.

Please click here to view the newsletter in PDF.

Editor’s Column: Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) – New and Improved

I see Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) as the equivalent of “QuickBooks for managing the workforce.” They can handle employee data beginning with payroll right through to COBRA administration. Along the way, HRIS systems offer bells and whistles to help manage this data, including payroll, benefits administration, leave management, learning management, and more.

As a rule, companies with 100 employees or more have dominated the HRIS market, because these systems require a significant investment in time and money – with little short-term return. However, increasing competition in the upscale market means that HRIS providers are beginning to target smaller employers.

Here are some of the trends with these systems:

• Integration with social media platforms, including everything from Facebook to Twitter, et al.
• An improved interface that makes the system easier to use and more inviting for employees.
• Tie-ins to insurance billing (real time Workers Comp billing, benefits billing, etc.)
• Mobile access, including for time-keeping purposes, as well as integration with tablet accessibility (iPads, etc.)
• Greater assistance with online recruiting and link to recruiting portals.
• Increased use of “talent analytics” that help with recruitment, workforce planning, and succession planning, together with improved analysis of workforce facts, trends, etc.
• The “gamification” of these systems.
• Influence of “the cloud” — the storage of data maintained on secure third-party Web sites, rather than your own site (like HR That Works). Of course, you’ll have to make sure that these third-party sites are, in fact, secure.
• Integration of career planning “dashboards.”
• Increased usage of paperless technology for everything from submitting resumes to electronic signatures on documents.
• Integration with employee wellness programs.

The main advantage of an HRIS system, as with a QuickBooks program, is having well managed data. HRIS advertising stresses the time saved in pulling reports on such topics as turnover. However, most smaller companies already know their turnover level.

Second, bear in mind that companies using HRIS are already running at 75 mph. Where will they get more time to use the system? When analyzed properly, do these systems really save time? Are HRIS bells and whistles truly related to corporate strategy or are they nothing more than distracting shiny objects?

Can You Cut Benefits Costs by Moving Employees to Medicare?

Many employers are doing everything they can to reduce benefit costs. One of our HR That Works Members posed this question to Alan Levy, a benefits law expert in our network.

“Q: If an employee is eligible for Medicare, can we state/insist that they must leave our company plan and accept Medicare?”

“A: We had this question from a client recently. There are serious penalties for forcing an active employee to give up the employer’s plan and go to Medicare, and offering a personal incentive might pose a problem. However, an employee can change to Medicare voluntarily, without restrictions or charges for pre-existing conditions, etc. This also applies to Medicare supplements and advantage problems. Some employees make the change voluntarily to use the current rule’s automatic unqualified acceptance, as well as to assure any “grandfathered” rights if Congress reduces or alters the program in the future. (Every “reform” proposal seems to exempt anyone already on Medicare.) A bigger problem is what happens to an employee’s spouse who isn’t old enough for Medicare if the employee leaves the company plan and goes to Medicare. Although COBRA works for a while, extension of this period is problematic.

“Finally, an employer offering a Medicare supplement or advantage plan to all who could qualify is not considered an improper incentive; the danger comes when the employer offers an individual some extra amount. The only exception I know of in this regard is the Third Circuit rule (applicable only in PA, NJ, and DE), Erie County, which treats certain variations of this scenario as age discrimination under the ADEA. EEOC says it will not apply the Third Circuit rule anywhere else in the nation, which seems to support the idea that employers offering the supplement, etc. is permissible.”

This advice is limited to the facts of the situation. As Alan points out, the EEOC has not drawn a black and white line on permissible supplements. The Social Security Administration provides an excellent publication on the interplay between private insurance and Medicare payments. (See pages 13-14)

Quantum HR

Our understanding of the physical world grows ever deeper. Quantum physicists have taught us that simply observing matter can affect its activity. We know that bits of matter once bonded together remain “entangled” even when separated by great distances. We should remember from Physics 101 that matter likes to settle into its least active state (entropy).

What do these facts have to do with HR? It’s simple: How people think about doing their jobs has implications that might be far broader than realized. If we accept the teachings of quantum physics at face value, then:

• Due to entanglement, how you go through your day will have an invisible, but perceptible impact on how the people you bond with feel every day. If you’re having a bad day, at some point, many of your co-workers and loved ones will feel this fact.
• Much of our existence depends on what we choose it to be. The very concept of “making your day” has scientific backing. As the proverb says, “As you believe, so shall you achieve.”
• Finally, unless you’re excited, it’s natural to use the least amount of energy possible to do a job. If you want to move yourself to a higher frequency, you have to get excited. Although some of us do this naturally, most people need a little motivation to get going. Don’t underestimate the power of this motivation in your business and personal life.

Because any organization is a collection of individuals, these concepts apply to the group as a whole. A positive company culture means that there’s a positive vibration among the workforce.

Disability Employment Statistics

The Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire has just issued its Annual Disability Statistics Compendium. Here are some of the stats related to employment in 2010. Click here to see the entire report.

Among the 19,048,426 individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community, 6,368,644 were employed — an employment rate of 33.4%. In contrast, among the 172,089,634 individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community, 125,358,735 were employed — an employment rate of 72.8%. The employment rate for people with disabilities was highest in North Dakota (54%) and lowest in Kentucky (25.7%).

The employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 33.4% while the rate for individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 72.8% — an “employment gap” of 39.4%. The employment gap was greatest in Maine (48.9%) and smallest in Wyoming (27.7%).

The employment gap between individuals with and without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 39.4%, compared with 39.1% in 2009.

Among the 19,048,426 individuals with disabilities ages 16 to 64 years living in the community, 3,834,727 were employed fulltime, year-round — a full-time, year-round employment rate of 20.1%. In contrast, of the 172,089,634 individuals without disabilities ages 16 to 64 years living in the community, 88,683,091 were employed full-time, year-round — a full-time, year-round employment rate of 51.5%. The full-time, year-round employment rate for people with disabilities was highest in North Dakota (32.1%) and lowest in Maine (15.2%).

Finally, the full-time, year-round employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 20.1%, while the full-time, year-round employment rate for individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 51.5% — a full-time, year-round employment gap of 31.4. The full-time, year-round employment gap was greatest in Maine (38.8%) and smallest in Utah (24.1%).

What can an employer take away from this?

• Obtaining gainful employment can be a real struggle for people with disabilities.
• Some communities are more “open” to employing the disabled. Some of this difference has to do with the types of jobs available, employment programs, and incentives.
• As “good people” we can rise above any perceived limitations and employ those with disabilities based on the results they are capable of producing.

To help with accommodation ideas go to http://askjan.org/.

Medical Documentation: Think About What’s Needed and Stop There

In our experience at JAN, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about medical documentation under the ADA. Employers aren’t sure what they can ask for, when they can ask for it, or whether the ADA Amendments Act has changed the rules for medical documentation. Employees aren’t sure what medical information they have to provide or how much to disclose. Medical professionals aren’t sure what documentation will be most helpful in getting their patients the workplace accommodations they need. Most of these questions come up when an employee requests an accommodation.

The good news: The medical inquiry rules that apply when an employee requests an accommodation are less complicated when they might seem. The general rule is that when the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, an employer may require an employee to provide documentation that can substantiate that s/he has an ADA disability and needs the reasonable accommodation requested, but can’t ask for unrelated documentation. So when thinking about what medical information to request or to provide, think about what is needed and stop there!

Let’s start with the documentation needed to substantiate that the employee has a disability. The definition of disability for accommodation purposes is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or a record of such an impairment.” To determine whether an employee has a disability, the employer can ask whether the employee has (or had) an impairment. If yes, you can ask whether the impairment affects (or affected) a major life activity. You can also ask whether the impairment substantially limits (or limited) the major life activity.

This is where the ADA Amendments Act has made some changes. Although the definition of “disability” remained unchanged, the threshold for showing substantial limitation is much lower than before. This means that the documentation needed to show that an employee has a disability should be far less extensive.

What about the documentation needed to substantiate the need for an accommodation? The ADA Amendments Act did not change the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA, so the rules for medical documentation likewise remained unchanged. An employer may verify that the accommodation is needed, ask questions about the employee’s limitations that are causing the problem, and get other relevant information about the request to help determine effective accommodations.

For more information, see recently updated JAN publications related to medical documentation, including:

• How to Determine Whether a Person Has a Disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA)
• Medical Inquiry in Response to an Accommodation Request
• Sample Medical Inquiry Form
• Practical Guidance for Medical Professionals: Providing Sufficient Medical Documentation in Support of a Patient’s Accommodation Request and Sample Accommodation Support Letter

- Linda Carter Batiste, J.D., Principal Consultant

‘Bad Haircut’ and Unequal Policy Enforcement Lead to Trouble for Employer

In NLRB v. White Oak Manor, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals enforced a decision by the National Labor Relations Board finding that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged an employee for allegedly photographing employees at work without permission. The Court agreed with the Board’s findings that the employee was actually discharged because of protected concerted activity and that the employer had not enforced its photography and dress code policies consistently.

Nichole Wright-Gore worked as a supply clerk for White Oak Manor. White Oak’s policies prohibited employees from wearing hats and taking photographs inside the long-term care facility. Wright-Gore was embarrassed about a bad haircut and started to wear a hat to work, without comment from any supervisor. After a week, however, when supervisors told her to remove the hat, she refused and was sent home. The next day, White Oak employees dressed up in costumes for Halloween. Wright-Gore’s costume included a hat, but her supervisor made her remove the hat pursuant to company policy. Wright-Gore complained that White Oak was enforcing the hat policy unequally, but her supervisor told her to worry only about herself and gave her a written warning for insubordination because she had refused to remove her hat the day before.

During the next few weeks, Wright-Gore photographed several employees wearing hats to work and violating other White Oak dress policies, such as failing to cover up their tattoos. She photographed some employees with their consent, but also took photographs of employees without their consent. She also shared the photographs with other employees and discussed the unequal treatment with them in an attempt to build support for her argument. White Oak eventually discharged Wright-Gore for violating the photography policy.

She then filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that White Oak interfered with her right to engage in protective concerted activity. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Wright-Gore’s complaints became protected concerted activity when they evolved into an effort to have White Oak enforce its dress code policies fairly. Another important issue was whether she lost protection of the Act by taking pictures of other employees without permission, in violation of White Oak policy. The ALJ held that she did not, in part, because there was evidence that other employees took pictures of each other without permission, and even displayed the pictures around the facility, without repercussion. The Board affirmed the ALJ findings.

On appeal, White Oak argued that Wright-Gore could not have engaged in protected concerted activity because she initially acted out of pure self- interest, and did not intend to act on behalf of a broader group. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument and enforced the Board’s decision. As the court noted, “[t]hat an employee’s self-interest catalyzed her decision to complain about working conditions does not inexorably bar a determination that her actions were protected and concerted.” Thus, the fact that Wright initially acted out of her own self- interest did not remove her actions from the protections of the Act. Moreover, the court’s decision emphasized the fact that White Oak had not enforced its photography or dress code policies consistently.

This case reinforces the importance of employers enforcing workplace policies consistently and the reality that seemingly individualized complaints can lead to employer decisions which conflict with the National Labor Relations Act.

Courtesy of Worklaw® Network firm Franczek Radelet.

Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation

One of the more vexing issues facing both employers and employees involves leave time related to a medical condition, especially when the period of leave exceeds an employer’s permitted leave allowance or otherwise violates an established attendance policy. Although such situations might be challenging and confusing, employers must confront them directly because using leave necessitated by an employee’s disability constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Reasonable Accommodation Guidance provides examples of some of the reasons an employee with a disability might require leave:

• Obtaining medical treatment or rehabilitation services related to the disability.
• Recuperating from an illness or an episodic manifestation of the disability.
• Obtaining repairs on prosthetic device or other equipment such as a wheelchair.
• Avoiding temporary adverse conditions in the work environment (for example, an air-conditioning breakdown causing unusually warm temperatures that could seriously harm an employee with multiple sclerosis).
• Training in the use of a service animal or assistive device.
• Training in the use of Braille or sign language.

Here’s a discussion of some frequent and confusing leave-related issues that employers and employee have presented to JAN.

How Much Leave Is Reasonable? The ADA does not set a specific amount of time relative to the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. As with any accommodation situation, you should consider a period of leave for an employee with a disability on a case-by-case analysis. If an employee needs a leave of absence that exceeds his or her accrued paid leave, the employer should permit the employee to exhaust the paid leave and then allow the use of unpaid leave absent undue hardship.

Although there’s no limit on the amount of leave used as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the EEOC has held that employers need not grant indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation (see the EEOC Guidance on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards, Question 21). However, the employee need not provide a specific, fixed date of return. A request for leave is acceptable with an approximate date of return (e.g., around the end of August) or a range of dates for a return to work (e.g., sometime between August 24 and September 23).

ADA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). An employee’s rights under the ADA and the FMLA are separate and distinct. The EEOC has ruled that when an employee is entitled to leave under both laws, the employer should allow leave under the law providing the employee with the greater rights (see the EEOC Fact Sheet on the FMLA, ADA, and Title VII). Additionally, employers should note that the ADA might require them to grant leave beyond the 12 weeks allowed under the FMLA as a reasonable accommodation. In this case, an employer can consider the FMLA leave taken in determining whether the requested leave time poses an undue hardship.

Erratic or Unreliable Attendance. The ADA can require employers to modify attendance policies as a reasonable accommodation in the absence of undue hardship. This does not mean that employers must exempt an employee from time and attendance requirements completely or accept irregular and unreliable attendance unquestionably. Frequent occurrences of tardiness or absenteeism, particularly during an extended period and without adequate notice, could certainly impose an undue hardship in many situations. See the Commission’s Guidance on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards for a detailed discussion with examples of specific scenarios.

Alternative Accommodations. Although it makes sense for employers to give an employee’s choice of accommodation primary consideration when more than one reasonable accommodation is possible, they can ultimately choose the accommodation to be implemented, assuming that it’s equally effective. Accordingly, under the ADA an employer can offer a reasonable accommodation that requires an employee to remain on the job, as long as it’s effective and doesn’t interfere with the employee’s medical needs.

Holding the Employee’s Position. The ADA requires an employer to consider returning the employee to his or her same position in the absence of undue hardship. If undue hardship applies, the employer must consider reassignment to a vacant, equivalent position for which the employee is qualified.

Undue Hardship. As with any other reasonable accommodations, whether an employer should allow the use of leave as an accommodation will sometimes come down to an undue hardship analysis. In the case of leave, undue hardship will generally relate to a possible disruption in operations of the entity. For instance, the absence of an employee who performs highly specialized duties might create legitimate undue hardship issues, as might leave that occurs in a frequent and unpredictable manner. Generalized assessments are not adequate, because undue hardship must be determined based on individual and specific circumstances. Additionally, the EEOC has ruled that an employer cannot base an undue hardship claim on the argument that a reasonable accommodation might affect the morale of other employees negatively or that other employees might have to cover for the employee who is on leave.

What to Remember. Ultimately, much of the confusion involving leave as an accommodation occurs when there are no clear and open lines of communication. Lack of communication is usually the major obstacle to executing an effective accommodation solution. All parties need to be aware of any relevant updates or concerns, and everyone should make an effort to keep the information flowing. If you need ideas on how to encourage ongoing communication during the accommodation process, contact JAN.

- Bill McCollum, MPA, Consultant

Form of the Month

I-9 Guidelines Audit (PDF) – Use this form for auditing your I-9 Forms, which verify the citizenship status of employees.

Podcast

Click here to to listen to this month’s newsletter podcast.