NLRB Guidance on Unionized Employer Bargaining Obligations when implementing OSHA’s ETS to Protect Workers from Coronavirus

November 19, 2021

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has released guidance on unionized employers’ bargaining obligations when implementing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (ETS). The ETS, if put into effect, would require employers with 100 or more employees to either institute a vaccine mandate or implement a testing program. The NLRB guidance advised that unionized employers must bargain over the latitude provided to employers by the ETS in making discretionary decisions for implementation of the mandate or testing program. Additionally, the guidance dictated that unionized employees should bargain over the potential effects of the ETS on the terms and conditions of employment and consequences for employees who fail to comply.


This guidance comes despite the November 16 announcement by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that it was suspending implementation of the ETS. This announcement comes as a response to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Order that ordered a pause on implementation of the ETS in light of pending litigation. In total, there were 34 petitions filed in 12 different circuit courts which sought review of the OSHA rule. In accordance with procedure, the cases were consolidated and a drawing selected the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the challenges as a consolidated case. The Sixth Circuit will have the authority to modify or strike down the Fifth Circuit’s Order. It is expected that the United States Supreme Court will likely have the final say on this matter.


If you have questions about OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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.