Royal

Biden Executive Order to Mandate Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

February 23, 2022

The Biden Administration just issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14063, which will require project labor agreements (“PLA’s’) on “large-scale construction projects,” defined as federal construction projects, within the U.S., at an estimated total cost of $35 million.


A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective bargaining agreement between a contractor and the building trade union. Such are negotiated before any workers are hired, and they establish the terms of employment on a project.


EO 14063 provides that PLA’s must:

  • Allow all contractors and subcontractors related to the projects to compete for work, unionized or not;
  • Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts and, and any other job disruptions; 
  • Establish mutually binding dispute resolution methods; 
  • Provide other mechanisms for cooperation between labor and management; and
  • Fully conform to all statutes, regulations, executive orders and presidential memoranda.


All contractors and subcontractors that work on the construction project are subject to the PLA, and its terms supersede any of their existing collective bargaining agreements. Yet, the contractors are not required to unionize.


Furthermore, a “senior official” within an agency may grant exceptions to these requirements if requiring a PLA would either not advance the Federal Government’s interests in achieving economy and efficiency, substantially reduce the number of potential bidders, or be otherwise inconsistent with statutes, regulations, executive orders or presidential memoranda.


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

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: