Royal

National Labor Relations Board Decision on I-9 Forms Upheld

June 17, 2021
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

A panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently upheld a decision that employers must bargain with unions over the effects of a requirement that employees fill out new I-9 forms. 


In this case, the employer conducted an I-9 audit, and determined that it did not have proper I-9 forms for 95% of its workforce. The employer notified the employees that they needed to submit new I-9 forms and supporting documentation. When the union found out about this, it complained that it had not received prior notice about the requirement and demanded bargaining on the issue. The employer refused, and argued that it did not have to bargain with the union over its decision to resolve I-9 compliance issues. Subsequently, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).


The NLRB found that requiring employees to submit a new I-9 form is a subject of mandatory bargaining because the requirement affects the terms and conditions of employment, since employees who have difficulty completing the form risk losing their jobs. Although employers must comply with federal immigration law and secure a valid I-9 for each employee, they have discretion over how to implement compliance, such as deciding the amount of time the employer would give an employee to present supporting documentation. Therefore, employers must bargain over the impact complying with the law could have on employees’ terms and conditions of employment.


This case demonstrates how even when implementing federal or state compliance, employers must consider interactions with labor laws and stay attentive to their NLRA obligations. If you need to make an adjustment to an employment practice, even if it is for state or federal compliance reasons, be sure to check with us first.


If you have any questions about this topic or any other labor and employment law matters, please feel free to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

March 5, 2025
A recent Massachusetts ruling regarding unpaid bonuses is extremely important for employers in light of the wave of litigation involving the Massachusetts Wage Act. In this case, Plaintiff brought claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for unpaid bonuses under ERISA, alleging that her former employer deprived her of guaranteed bonus payments. This case is of particular interest as it is rare for a court to consider the substantive nature of a case during the dismissal stage. However, in this case, the judge ruled on the substantive nature of the wages Plaintiff claimed, outside of the purview of a typical motion to dismiss decision. The court decided that the compensation of a bonus under ERISA is “discretionary or contingent upon the employee remaining with the company [and] is not considered a wage subject to the wage act” and dismissed the claims of unpaid wages, only allowing the retaliation claims to proceed. The judge found that bonuses did not constitute wages as they are not earned. This decision can help to decrease employers’ concerns about wage claims, particularly those related to bonuses and deferred compensation.  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 26, 2025
Recent executive orders issued by the executive branch have raised questions for many employers, especially relating to DEI policies. While it was initially interpreted that the executive orders regarding the presence of DEI policies only applied to federal agencies and companies that receive federal funds, a recent investigation by the Department of Education has raised questions about whether privately funded organizations and companies could face prosecution.  In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (as known as MIAA), a program not directly funded by the federal government, is being investigated by the Department of Education for an alleged violation of Title IX in allowing transgender individuals to participate in women’s sports. While MIAA’s policy is loosely related to DEI protocols, this investigation seems to declare that support of DEI-type programs and policies by private companies can be prosecuted akin to this investigation. It is investigations such as these that has led to a movement called “rainbow-hushing,” in which companies drop or quietly rebrand their diversity, equity and inclusion programs to avoid prosecution. While confusion and contradictions between anti-discrimination laws and the new wave of executive orders issued by the executive branch remain abound, it is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under the new executive orders, akin to MIAA. 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.
Share by: