Compliance Stuff

A coalition of activist and labor groups is calling for a nationwide “no work, no school, no shopping” action on May 1 (International Workers’ Day) framed by some organizers as a general strike. Whether it reaches that scale remains to be seen. What employers need to know right now, however, is that you have certain rights and responsibilities when it comes to potential protest-related work stoppages, and these obligations turn on some nuances that you should be familiar with. Here is what you should know before May Day arrives, whether or not your workplace is unionized. What is Actually Being Planned? The  “May Day Strong” coalition  is urging workers, students, and community members to stay home from work, avoid school, and boycott shopping on May 1. Organizers are explicitly framing the action as a response to the current administration’s policies. Tactically, the call ranges from  full-day walkouts at places of employment  to symbolic absences and consumer boyc...

Seyfarth Synopsis:   The State of Washington is proposing a new workplace safety rule that allows employees to designate a non-employee third-party representative—including unrelated union activists—during workplace safety inspections conducted by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries, aligning with a recent federal OSHA rule. This move could significantly impact workplace safety protocols and employer obligations. Stay tuned as we delve into the details of this proposal, its legal challenges, and what it means for businesses in Washington. The State of Washington proposed a new workplace safety rule allowing employees to designate a non-employee third-party representative to accompany Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) inspectors during a workplace safety and health inspection . L&I’s proposal to expand access for unions follows the federal government’s lead due to an OSHA rule that became effective May 31, 2024. Employers have challenged ...

 The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision directing district courts to use the traditional four-part test when evaluating whether a preliminary injunction should issue at the request of the National Labor Relations Board pending litigation of a complaint under the  National Labor Relations Act. No. 23-367 (June 13, 2024). The decision settles the split among the federal circuit courts over the standard that should be applied when the Board files a motion for a “10(j)” injunction, named for the section of the Act that authorizes the Board to seek injunctive relief. Circuit courts were split on which test should apply: the traditional four-part test, a more lenient two-part test, or a hybrid of the two. The Court’s decision raises the bar for the Board, requiring it to meet each prong of the four-part test for a court to grant an injunction . In particular, it will be more difficult for the Board to establish it is “likely to succeed on the merits,” as opposed to the more leni...