Class 5 outlines

Class 4 outlines

Unfair labor practices by employers

Interference with employee rights: 29 USC § 158(a)(1)
- Employer responsibility
- Free speech v. interference
  - NLRB v. VEPCO, 314 U.S. 469 (1941)
- Threat v. prophecy: § 158(c)
  - NLRB v. Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. 575 (1969)
  - Right to Organize Act: S 654 (1999), S 1102 (2001)
- Employee rights v. property rights
  - NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox, 351 U.S. 105 (1956)
Domination or interference with labor unions: § 158(a)(2)
- Employee participation programs
  - NLRB v. Cabot Carbon, 360 U.S. 203 (1959)
  - Electromation, 309 NLRB 163 (1992)
  - “Safe havens”: du Pont, 311 NLRB 88 (1993)
  - “Brainstorming”? Polaroid, 329 NLRB 47 (1999)
  - Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act (TEAM)
    - HR 743 (1995), Clinton veto (1996); HR 634/S 295 (1997)
- Employee Free Choice Act
  - HR 3619/S 1925 (2003), HR 1696/S 842 (2005), HR 800/S 1041 (2007)
    - AFL-CIO support
- Secret Ballot Protection Act
  - HR 4343/S 2637 (2004), HR 874/S 1173 (2005), HR 866/S 1312 (2007)
    - US Chamber of Commerce support
Discrimination against employees
- Encourage or discourage union membership: § 158(a)(3)
  - Phelps Dodge v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (1941)
  - Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961)
  - NLRB v. TMC, 462 U.S. 393 (1983)
- Who filed charges with NLRB: § 158(a)(4)
  - Johnson’s v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983)
Refusal to bargain: § 158(a)(5)
- Good-faith obligation: § 158(d)
  - NLRB v. American, 343 U.S. 395 (1952)
  - NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962)
- Subjects: NLRB v. Borg-Warner, 356 U.S. 342 (1958)
- Extent of duty: Heinz v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941)
  - Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act
    - HR 1412 (1999), HR 652 (2001), HR 93 (2003), HR 101 (2005), HR 142 (2007), HR 243 (2009)
Certain “hot cargo” agreements: § 158(e) [see below and next class]

Unfair labor practices by unions

Introduction
- Background/history
- Union responsibility and free speech
Restraint or coercion of employees or employers: 29 USC § 158(b)(1)
- Duty of fair representation
  - Ford v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953)
  - Steelworkers v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (1990)
- Fines: NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S. 175 (1967)
  - NLRB v. Boeing, 412 U.S. 67 (1973)
  - Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985)
Causing employers to discriminate: § 158(b)(2) [see above]
- Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17 (1954)
Refusal to bargain: § 158(b)(3) [see above]
- Good-faith obligation: § 158(d) [see above]
Prohibited strikes and picketing: § 158(b)(4)
- sub¶ (B) common-situs picketing
  - NLRB v. Denver Bldg. Council, 341 U.S. 675 (1951)
- sub¶ (D) jurisdictional disputes
  - NLRB v. Plasterers, 404 U.S. 116 (1971)
Excessive initiation fees: § 158(b)(5)
“Featherbedding”: § 158(b)(6)
- ANPA v. NLRB, 345 U.S. 100 (1953)
Prohibited organizational/recognitional picketing: § 158(b)(7)
- sub¶ (C) informational picketing permitted
Certain “hot cargo” agreements: § 158(e)
- Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U.S. 93 (1958)

Grievances

Grievance = alleged violation of worker rights
- Violation of collective bargaining agreement
- Violation of federal or state law
- Violation of past practice
- Violation of company rules
- Violation of management responsibilities
High grievance rate factors
- Unfavorable task environment
- Aggressive union leadership
- Ineffective managerial decision-making
Types of grievances
- Employee
- Union
- Class action
Types of grievants
- Nongrievants
- One- or two-time grievants
- Repeated grievants
- Grievants responding to company disciplinary action
Management philosophy
- Hard-line
- Cost-effective
- Permissive

Grievances and arbitration

Grievance procedure: Art VII
- Entry: who/what/where
- Range of disputes: rights, not interests
- Process: steps
- Default: statute of limitations
Arbitration
- Last resort: GAO’s ADR report (12 Aug 97)
- Selection: AAA; FMCS (29 USC § 172)
- Role of arbitrator(s)
- Quasi-legal: due process, evidence, precedence
- Decision: binding, enforceable
  - Appeals: process, authority, arbitrariness
    - Federal Arbitration Act (FAA): 9 USC § 10
    - WA: RCW 7.04A.230 (L 05)
  - Boost for finality
    - Paperworkers v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987)
  - Project labor agreement arbitrability
    - UA Local 38 v. Huber Hunt (9th Cir. 2002)
      
      “Ninth Circuit interprets PLA to resolve
      controversy over dispute resolution method”
      BNA Construction Labor Report (13 Mar 02)
    - US Supreme Court denies petition (7 Oct 02)
      
      “Supreme Court denies review of ruling
      on arbitration under project agreement”
      BNA Construction Labor Report (9 Oct 02)
- Arbitrate collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or state-law claims?
  - Suit not preempted by 29 USC § 185 unless resolution of state-law claim depends upon interpretation of a CBA
    - Lingle v. Norge, 486 U.S. 399 (1988)
  - WA: Suit not preempted by 29 USC § 185 if resolution of the state-law claim is independent of a CBA
    - Commodore v. UMCI, 120 Wn. 2d 120 (1992)
  - State civil-rights suit preempted by FAA § 1 which exempts only employment contracts of transportation workers
    - Circuit City v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001)
    - Circuit City v. Adams (9th Cir. 2002) on remand
  - WA: State wrongful-discharge suit permitted despite arbitration agreement
    - Young v. Ferrellgas, 106 Wn. App. 524 (2001)
  - WA: Union’s suit, on employees’ behalf, for Social Security benefits permitted despite CBA’s arbitration clause
    - Firefighters v. Spokane Airports, 146 Wn. 2d 207 (2002)
- Arbitrate Federal statutory claims?
  - CBA’s arbitration clause cannot bar employee from seeking Title VII remedies in court
    - Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, 415 U.S. 36 (1974)
  - Statutory (here ADEA) claims may be subject of enforceable arbitration agreement where Congress fails to expressly preclude non-judicial resolution
    - Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson, 500 U.S. 20 (1991)
  - CBA’s arbitration clause cannot bar employee from seeking statutory (here ADA) remedies in court unless agreement to arbitrate such claims is clear and unmistakable
    - Wright v. Universal Maritime, 525 U.S. 70 (1998)
  - Mandatory arbitration agreement cannot bar EEOC, on employee’s behalf, from seeking statutory (here ADA) remedies in court
    - EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
- Federal proposals
  - Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act
    - HR 872/S 121 (1999), HR 1489/S 163 (2001)
  - Allow employees right to accept or reject arbitration
    - HR 613 (1999), HR 815 (2001), HR 540 (2003), HR 3651 (2005)
  - National Employment Dispute Resolution Act of 2001: HR 820
  - Preservation of Civil Rights Protections Act
    - HR 2282 (2001), S 2435 (2002), HR 2969 (2005)
  - Fair Arbitration Act of 2007: S 1135
  - Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007: HR 3010/S 1782
  - Civil Rights Act of 2008: HR 5129/S 2554
No-strike pledge
- Exchanged for grievance procedure
- Restraining order
  - Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235 (1970)
- Sympathy strikes excluded?
  - Buffalo Forge v. Steelworkers, 428 U.S. 397 (1976)
- Wildcat strike

Employee benefit plans

BLS: employee benefits
- Retirement plans in 2006 (25 Aug 06)
- Flexible benefits and reimbursement accounts (4 Apr 07)
- Health savings accounts (5 Apr 07)
- Health benefit costs by region (8 July 07)
- Health care plans in 2007 (23 Aug 07)
- Leave benefits in 2007 (30 Aug 07)
- Medical care benefits for lower and higher wage workers (3 Jan 08)
- Employer costs for paid leave in private industry (20 Mar 08)
- Health benefit costs in private industry (12 June 08)
- Employer costs for retirement and savings plans (11 Sept 08)
- Variation in medical care benefits by occupation (25 Sept 08)
- Employment costs in private industry (3 Nov 08)
- Employer shares of medical plan premiums (5 Nov 08)
Mandatory subject of bargaining
- 29 USC § 186
  - (a) Illegal to influence with money
  - (b) Illegal to accept money
  - (c) Exempts employee benefit plans

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): 29 USC ch 18

Administered by Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)

“Labor Secretary Chao renames agency
administering retirement and health benefits”
US Dept of Labor (3 Feb 03)

Problems with private pensions

“Workplace feels health-coverage ills” The Seattle Times (20 Oct 03)
“Fewer firms provide for retirement” San Francisco Chronicle (28 Oct 03)
“Young workers may pay later for lack of planning” The Seattle Times (9 Nov 03)
“Many boomers facing a retirement bust” The Seattle Times (14 Dec 03)
“Why retirement plans are falling short” The Christian Science Monitor (5 Jan 04)
“Retirees facing higher health costs, survey says” The Seattle Times (15 Jan 04)
“Workers resigned to more cuts in retirement benefits” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (9 Feb 04)
“Recession worries lower retirement expectations” AP/MSNBC (28 Jan 09)

Covered plans
- Defined-benefit plans
- Defined-contribution plans
- Cash balance plans
- Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)
Employee eligibility and participation
Employer contributions until age 70
Vesting = legally enforceable claim to benefits
- Employee contributions fully and immediately
- Employer contributions usually phased over time
- Full vesting at retirement

Fiduciary responsibilities and liabilities

Insurance and bonding

Mertens v. Hewitt, 508 U.S. 248 (1993)

“Labor Department sues plumbers’
pension trustees over Florida investment”
US Dept of Labor (12 Sept 02)

“Three union directors resign
over handling of ULLICO report”
Engineering News-Record (9 Dec 02)

“New leaders stabilize ULLICO
and try to put scandal in past”
Engineering News-Record (31 May 04)

Reporting and disclosure

“Labor Department issues reporting and
disclosure guide for employee benefit plans”
US Dept of Labor (20 Nov 03)

Funding of benefits by employers

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC): 29 USC § 1302

Retirement Protection Act of 1994
GAO’s plan funding report (16 Oct 98)
FY01: sixth straight year-end surplus (8 Apr 02)
Bethlehem Steel: largest PBGC takeover (16 Dec 02)
FY02: $11.37 billion loss largest ever (30 Jan 03)
FY03: deficit a record $11.2 billion (15 Jan 04)
FY04: deficit a record $23.3 billion (15 Nov 04)
Companies’ record $353.7 billion shortfall (7 June 05)
FY05: deficit $22.8 billion (15 Nov 05)
FY06: deficit $18.1 billion (15 Nov 06)
FY07: deficit $13.1 billion (14 Nov 07)
Most PBGC retirees receive full earned benefit (29 Nov 07)
Maximum insurance benefit for 2009 (3 Nov 08)

FY08: deficit $10.7 billion (17 Nov 08) new

“Some Kaiser pensions are taken over”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (17 Dec 03)

“Kaiser wants to cut off benefits for retirees”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (13 Jan 04)

Editorial: “The shame of Kaiser”
The Seattle Times (20 Jan 04)

“Pensions face huge asset gap”
The Washington Post (18 June 04)

“Kaiser’s pension plan in government hands”
The Seattle Times (30 July 04)

“Bush administration proposal to strengthen
the retirement security of 34 million Workers”
US Dept of Labor (10 Jan 05)

Editorial: “Your $450 billion”
The Washington Post (24 Jan 05)

“PBGC assumes Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical pension plans”
US PBGC (19 Jan 07)

Limitations on contributions and benefits
- See 26 USC § 404
Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (1980)
- See 26 USC § 414(f), 29 USC § 1002(37)
- Defined-benefit plans covered (7 Apr 99)
- PBGC’s plan termination rules
- Plan member withdrawal liability
  - Concrete Pipe v. Laborers, 508 U.S. 602 (1993)
Federal legislation, proposals
- Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act
  - HR 1102 (2000), HR 1836 Title VI ( PL 01)
- Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004: HR 3108 ( PL 04)
  
  “Senate OKs bill to protect pensions”
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer (29 Jan 04)
  
  “Pension bill seen as Band-Aid”
  The Seattle Times (3 Feb 04)
- Pension Protection Act: HR 4 ( PL 06)
  - US Chamber of Commerce support; Pension Coalition
    
    “Pension changes: What you need to know”
    The Seattle Times (16 Aug 06)
    
    “New law bulks up pension for all employees”
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer (5 Feb 07)
- Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act: HR 7327 (PL 08)
  
  “Senate, House clear pension
  relief covering multi-employer plans”
  Engineering News-Record (12 Dec 08)

Health-related benefits

Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA)

“COBRA too costly for many
unemployed, report finds”
The Washington Post (10 Jan 09)
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA): 29 USC ch 28
- Compliance guide
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine, 535 U.S. 81 (2002)
  
  “Administration seeks family leave
  act changes; labor groups wary”
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer (24 Jan 08)
Inter-Modal v. ATSF, 520 U.S. 510 (1997)

“Business can’t fire workers
to cut benefits, Court says”
The Wall Street Journal (13 May 97)
Aetna v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004)

Opinion: “Redress when
wronged? Forget about it”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (15 July 04)

Federal proposals

National Health Insurance Act
- HR 16 (1997), HR 16 (1999), HR 16 (2001), HR 15 (2003), HR 15 (2005), HR 15 (2007), HR 15 (2009)
Right Start Act: HR 265/S 18 (2001), HR 2363/S 18 (2003)
Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act
- S 543 (2001), HR 4066 (2002), HR 953/S 486 (2003), HR 1402 (2005)

Small Business Health Fairness Act

HR 1774/S 858 (2001), HR 660 (2003), HR 4281 (2004), HR 525 (2005), HR 241 (2007)

“Secretary Chao releases report
on association health plans”
US Dept of Labor (13 Sept 02)

“Labor Secretary Chao calls on Congress
to pass association health plan legislation”
US Dept of Labor (27 Sept 02)

“Labor Secretary Chao:
‘Association health plans needed’”
US Dept of Labor (26 Aug 04)

Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act
- HR 2366/S 489 (2001), HR 35/S 320 (2003)
Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act
- HR 2784 (2001), HR 956 (2003), HR 476 (2005), HR 2392 (2007), HR 7233 (2008)
  
  Opinion: “Paid family leave goes too far”
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer (24 Dec 06)
Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act: S 304 (2003), S 282 (2005), HR 1369 (2007)
Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act: HR 1430 (2003), HR 475 (2005), HR 2792 (2007)
Affordable Health Care Act: S 16 (2005), S 158 (2007)
Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act: HR 324 (2007)
Healthy Families Act: HR 1542/S 910 (2007)

Opinion: “Sick-leave issue
connects with every worker”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (27 Nov 08)
Healthy Americans Act: HR 3163/S 334 (2007)
Family Leave Insurance Act: S 1681 (2007), HR 5873 (2008)
Affordable Health Care Expansion Act: HR 5784 (2008)
Making Health Care More Affordable Act: HR 5955/S 3072 (2008)
Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act: S 3554 (2008)
America’s Affordable Health Care Act: HR 6280 (2008), HR 109 (2009)
Comprehensive Health Reform Act: S 4 (2009)
Small Business Empowerment Act: S 93 (2009)

WA legislation, proposals

RCW 49.12.265 (L 02, 05), 49.78 (L 89-06), 49.86 (L 07)

Mandatory minimum paid leave? HB 1221/ SB 5377 (2003)
Mandatory paid family leave? SHB 1173/ E2SSB 5069 [ report] (2005)
“Sick leave” clarified: SSB 5850 (L 05) [ report]
Mandatory paid sick leave? HB 2777/ SB 6592 (2006) [ report]
Expand family leave? SHB 2392/ SSB 6185 (2006) [ report]

Family leave insurance: .pdf

E2SSB 5659 (L 07) [ .pdf

report]

“What Washington’s paid
family leave benefits cover”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (9 Sept 07)

“Family leave plan will
cost $30 million yearly”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (27 Sept 07)

“State surplus could pay for
family leave, task force says”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (14 Nov 07)

Implementation? SHB 3305 [ report] or SB 6280 (2008) [ report]

Editorial: “Family leave: fairer treatment”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (25 Jan 08)

Opinion: “More family leave policies not needed”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (28 Jan 08)
Add medical leave? HB 1609/ SB 5679 (2009)
Repeal? HB 1160 or SB 5558 (2009)

Violence, stalking leave? HB 2602 (2008) [ analysis]

Mental health parity: RCW 48.20.580 (L 07), 48.44.341 (L 05-07)
- SHB 1154 (L 05) [ report]; EHB 1460 (L 07) [ report]
  
  “House OKs mental health insurance bill”
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer (29 Jan 05)
  
  “Mental-health bill requires equality”
  The Seattle Times (5 Feb 07)
“Wal-Mart health plan”: SHB 2517 [ report]/ SSB 6356 (2006) [ report]

Editorial: “AFL-CIO to take Maryland’s
‘Wal-Mart Health Plan’ across nation”
FOX News (19 Jan 06)

Editorial: “Capitol watch: Blame Wal-Mart?”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (20 Jan 06)
Small employer health insurance partnership program: RCW 70.47A (L 06-07)
- E2SHB 1569 (L 07 PV) [ report]
Domestic partnerships: RCW 26.60 (L 07)
- SSB 5336 (L 07) [ report]
- Expansion? HB 1727/ SB 5688 (2009) [ report]
  
  “WA lawmakers seek expanded
  domestic partner rights”
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer (27 Jan 09)
  
  Editorial: “Same-sex partners:
  a question of fairness”
  The Seattle Times (29 Jan 09)

“WA lawmakers seek expanded domestic partner rights” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (27 Jan 09)
Editorial: “Same-sex partners: a question of fairness” The Seattle Times (29 Jan 09)