Subject: Trojan Horse Coming Soon: OSHA's New “Walkaround” Rule: LRI INK

February 29, 2024

To visit the blog post, click on the link below the article.

Trojan Horse Coming Soon: OSHA's New “Walkaround” Rule

by Michael VanDervort

On February 9, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) advanced its final "walkaround" regulation to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review, signaling the imminent publication of the rule. This rule has sparked opposition from the U.S. Chamber and other business groups, likely resulting in legal challenges to the rule.

 

The rule proposes allowing union and third-party representatives to accompany inspectors during worksite evaluations, significantly altering the current dynamics of that process. This change is not merely about enhancing safety inspections; it represents a fundamental shift in employer control of their property and workplace privacy.

 

Picture this: a parade of union reps or attorneys, each with their own agenda, roaming your site as observers and active participants in the inspection process.

 

Employers face operational and privacy challenges under the new rule, which apparently does not limit the number of representatives during an inspection. This raises concerns about protecting sensitive business information and the rights and role of these external advocates. The rules for such visits and the roles of people walking around are very unclear. 

 

This rule could serve as a Trojan horse for unionizing efforts. This isn't just about safety—it's about influence and, potentially, about shifting power dynamics. The legal implications are vast, with critics predicting a flurry of challenges and litigation. Employers will soon be on the front lines of a battle they didn't choose, armed with policy manuals in a fight spilling into the courts.

 

And then there's the privacy angle. The sanctity of proprietary information and workplace privacy is now at risk to persons unknown with potentially harmful agendas. As an employer, the thought of external eyes and ears having a front-row seat to your operations should be unsettling.

 

While the rule is pitched as a safety measure, the repercussions ripple far beyond. It opens the door to union access in non-unionized settings, something many employers will view with well-deserved skepticism. The question isn't just about who walks through the door during an inspection but about what doors might open as a result.

 

The rule's finalization may be imminent, but the dialogue it sparks is just beginning. Employers should be strategic about preparing for this change and engage in conversation around the legality and need for the change.

Can Employers Ban Political Messaging In The Workplace? It’s Complicated.

by Kimberly Ricci

We recently rounded up a wardrobe full of rulings on workplace political messaging as displayed on uniforms and apparel. That article turned up a legal grab bag that left employers with no clear roadmap. This article will discuss how the messaging continues to shift, possibly against employers. That would be the main takeaway to how Home Depot has been treated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) this month on this challenging subject. Right now, the rules are a mixed bag for employers.

 

Before we discuss the latest news, let’s recap the key 2023 legal sagas:

 

  • Kroger did not find relief from an administrative law judge, who agreed with the NLRB’s claim that the company illegally banned (paywall) workers from wearing BLM-themed masks and buttons, even though this apparel was marked with the UFCW logo.

  • Tesla received welcome news from a federal appeals court, which reversed the NLRB’s finding that the company’s workplace ban on UAW shirts was illegal. The auto manufacturer had argued that Tesla-branded shirts were required for safety reasons, and the auto manufacturer also apparently compromised by allowing workers to display union-branded stickers.

  • Whole Foods won a three-year legal battle when an administrative judge reversed the NLRB’s declaration that the company’s ban of BLM apparel – part of a moratorium on all political messaging in the workplace – was illegal. The judge further ruled that this apparel wasn’t a “protected activity” under the NLRA because it wasn’t substantially related to carrying out workplace duties. Whole Foods likely also tipped the issue in their favor by extending the messaging ban to all politically labeled apparel rather than singling out BLM as the sole focus of the messaging discussion.

 

Next up? This month’s Home Depot ruling from the NLRB declared that a worker's protest was a “protected activity” and that the company must reinstate a worker after firing him for refusing to remove a self-drawn BLM insignia from his apron. The board reasoned that the insignia's display was the “logical outgrowth” of workers previously protesting racial discrimination by store management, which the board determined was related to working conditions. The board further found that the company failed to establish the apparel ban as “necessary to maintain production or discipline.” 

 

Notably, the NLRB also rejected Home Depot’s claim that the BLM insignia would upset some customers, which arrives as a warning to retailers. Yet the board did not take their ruling as far as General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo wanted – she sought a blanket statement for all workplace discrimination protests to be “inherently concerted” regardless of previous actions or concerns from other workers. Still, it’s safe to assume that Abruzzo could always reframe that request for another attempt in a future case.

 

Also, the board’s ruling likely invites more activism (reg. required) regarding apparel in the workplace. Home Depot could roll the dice in a federal appeals court, yet that remains to be seen. 

 

What is crystal clear, however, is that the debate on workplace political messaging is not over yet. Still, if companies can make compromises and ensure that they are not discriminating against any cause (as seen with the above Tesla and Whole Foods examples), those gestures could go miles toward resolving the issue in their favor.

The New ‘Joint Employer’ Standard Postponed: Stay Tuned For A Court Ruling

by Kimberly Ricci

Last November, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) delivered some of its trademark rulemaking whiplash with a new final rule to considerably increase the number of businesses defined as “joint employers.” Companies will easily meet the new definition by possessing the ability to control at least one key employment term (pay, scheduling, etc.) of workers shared with other companies. This overly broad definition could tear a tornado-shaped hole through many industries, from hospitality and retail to healthcare and fast food restaurants.


The latter category, of course, is already grappling with the minimum wage mess in California and does not need any more horsing around from the NLRB. Heck, the board’s expanded definition could destroy fast-food franchise models. Any company that uses contracted or app-based delivery drivers would similarly feel pain. The new rule could also lead to an untold number of layoffs, harming workers and businesses.


Why is this attempted switcheroo happening?


Let’s get real: The new rule is a tactic by General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo to grease the wheels of unionization at all costs, including the following: (1) By forcing non-unionized companies to bargain with unions that do not even represent their workers; (2) By making these companies jointly liable for unfair labor charges against businesses that employ the same worker. 


Businesses fight back: An industry coalition, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sued over the new rule, and the original December 26 effective date was pushed back until February. Now, that deadline has been further extended. All eyes remain on an impending ruling, but here is where the matter currently stands:

  • U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker, a Texas-based Trump appointee, pushed the rule’s effective date to March 11 after hearing arguments from the industry coalition. Their main argument characterizes the new rule as violating federal labor law by reverting to the common law interpretation of a joint employer. 

  • The Eastern District of Texas federal courts tend to lean more favorably towards business interests, and that’s precisely why the NLRB wanted to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously favored a broadened definition.

  • Judge Barker hasn’t tipped his hand on which way he will swing. Still, he has expressed concerns about how the rule could “complicate collective bargaining” and force businesses to bargain with a union representing janitorial staffers from a third-party agency who clean their office buildings. It sounds preposterous, yes, but possible.

The irony here is that Abruzzo’s endgame – to require joint employers that have successfully warded off organizing activity to still sit at the bargaining table – makes a mockery of the union election process and democracy itself. Then again, the NLRB is already doing this with Cemex, so at least the board is being consistent or, as the saying goes, “on brand.”

Stories You May Have Missed:


An Automotive Tune-Up: The UAW’s Current State Of Organizing

Link


Employer Bids for Union Elections Boom In Wake of Cemex Ruling 

Link


U.S. Court Backs NLRB Rule Requiring 'Successor' Bargaining By Companies 

Link


Starbucks Agrees To U.S. Union Organizing 'Framework'

Link


Teamsters, Anheuser-Busch Reach Tentative Deal To Avert A Strike

Link

About Labor Relations INK

Labor Relations INK is published weekly and is edited by Labor Relations Institute, Inc. Feel free to pass this newsletter on to anyone you think might enjoy it. New subscribers can sign up by visiting here.


If you use content from this newsletter, please attribute it to Labor Relations Institute and include our website: http://www.LRIonline.com 


Contributing editors for this issue: Greg Kittinger, Michael VanDervort, and Kimberly Ricci.


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to receive our labor relations newsletters and updates. You can manage your email preferences by clicking the link at the bottom of any of our email communications.


About Labor Relations Institute

LRI exists to help our clients thrive and become extraordinary workplaces. We improve the lives of working people by strengthening relationships with their leaders and each other. For over 41 years, LRI has led the labor and employee relations industry, driven by our core values and our proven process, the LRI Way.

 

Share