Royal

National Labor Relations Board Decisions

September 7, 2023

Attorney Amy Royal was recently interviewed by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly regarding the NLRB’s August 2, 2023 decision in Stericycle Inc. The decision set a new standard on the question of whether an employer’s work rule that does not expressly restrict employees’ protected concerted activity, as it pertains to their rights to unionize, under Section 7 of the NLRA is nevertheless unlawful under NLRA Section 8(a)(1).


2023 has been an interesting year as the NLRB appears to be setting a pattern of decision-making and new laws leaning heavily in favor of employee rights. Management-side attorneys should be prepared as more decisions come down the pipeline.


  • On August 24, 2023, the NLRB finalized procedural changes that result in quicker union election processes.
  • This is a restoration of the process that was adopted during the Obama administration, and which was eliminated in 2019. The new rule/process takes effect on December 26, 2023, and holds that elections must be held before any related litigation can be resolved.

 

  • The very next day, on August 25, 2023, the NLRB issued a decision in the Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC matter. The decision essentially requires a company to bargain with a union without any formal election when the business has committed labor law violations.
  • The NLRB found that employers may be ordered to bargain with unions, regardless of formal elections, unless they can prove a good faith doubt regarding whether there is a majority support for the union amongst the employees.

 

If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: