February 5th, 2010 | By Paul Cherner
The U.S. Dept. of Labor has been updating its website on a weekly basis offering additional information re the COBRA Subsidy (65% of COBRA premium) under the ARRA and should be referred to if you have any questions about administering this benefit.
Legislation is pending in the House and will be introduced in the Senate to extend the current deadline that employees must be involuntarily separated on or before Feb. 28, 2010 in order to be eligible for this subsidy. The current House version extends the date to June 30, 2010, while President Obama’s recent federal budget submission suggested extending the date to December 31, 2010. Given continued high unemployment rate reports, it is likely that an extension will be enacted this month.
January 28th, 2009 | By Paul Cherner
On January 27, 2009, the House and Senate reconciled their versions of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and send the agreed bill to President Obama, who signed it into law on January 29, 2009.
The final version of this law is substantially broader than newspaper accounts, which often refer to it as being necessary to allow female employees to be able to proceed with respect to their claims of unequal pay. This law covers all categories of prohibited discrimination under Title VII, as well as under the ADA, ADEA and the Rehabilitation Act. Additionally, the law refers to decisions which may discriminatorily impact upon benefits and other forms of compensation. This latter provision may result in additional challenges with respect to benefit payments that are based upon compensation decisions that were made many years ago.
The law is intended to have a retroactive effect and apply to all charges that were pending on or after May 28, 2007.
January 19th, 2009 | By Paul Cherner
There has been a substantial amount of debate concerning the proposed federal legislation entitled the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”).
In 2007, EFCA was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, but failed to win a cloture vote to end a filibuster in the Senate. Labor unions have listed the passage of EFCA as one of their top priorities. There has been fierce debate about this legislation, often accompanied by statistics supporting either the necessity or the lack of necessity for passing this law.
This law is intended to expedite the process by which unions can organize workers. For the past 60 years, unions were recognized as the collective bargaining representative of a group of employees by either an employer voluntarily agreeing that a majority of their employees wanted the union as their representative (usually through a “card check”) or by the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election. Initially, employees sign union authorization cards, which are then used by a union to obtain voluntary recognition or to petition the NLRB to conduct a secret ballot election. In an overwhelming majority of the situations involving union organizing, the NLRB conducts a secret ballot election.
EFCA would allow a union to have the NLRB certify them as the representative of a group of employees based solely on a card check, which would determine whether a majority of employees in the group have signed cards. This proposed change would have the practical effect of obviating the need (or opportunity) for an NLRB secret ballot election and would expedite the procees of unionization.
According to the NLRB ‘s 2008 Operations Report, it conducted elections within 56 days after a petition was filed in 95% of the cases. Where there were post-election matters to consider, the NLRB finalized these elections within 100 days after the petition was filed in 84% of their cases. The unions argue that undue delay has allowed employers to coerce employees into voting against the union. In contrast, employers argue that a secret ballot election is needed to allow employees to weigh the pros and cons of union representation and permit them to vote in privacy without coercion.
EFCA would also expedite the first collective bargaining process by providing a short time (10 days) for the parties to meet and then 90 days to reach an agreement. If an agreement is not reached at that time, either party may request an FMCS Mediator, who has an additional 30 days to persuade the parties to reach an agreement. If a contract has not been agreed to within that time period, the dispute would be submitted to an FMCS Arbitration Panel, which has the authority to resolve the dispute and impose the resolution on the parties for a 2 year period. There would also be enhanced penalties and fines in this new law to protect employees against discrimination during the organizing period until the first contract is entered into.
It will be interesting to see what happens to this legislation during the next Congressional term given the current state of the economy.
