United States: Other NLRB Developments – Summer 2017

Last Updated: October 4 2017
Article by Ogletree Deakins

Here is a brief summary of other noteworthy developments in recent months:

Circuit court decisions

Revised successor bar doctrine upheld. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had a rational basis for revising the so-called successor bar doctrine in its 2011 UGL-UNICCO Service Co. decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held, noting that the agency explained its reason for doing so and "marshalled new factual support for its doctrinal move." The Board also properly applied the doctrine in finding an employer that took over a bankrupt company unlawfully refused to bargain with the union that represented a group of truck drivers at the acquired business. In UGL, the Board overruled MV Transportation—a Bush-era case that had created an immediate window, following a sale or merger, during which a union's representative status could be challenged by 30 percent of employees, the employer, or a rival union. UGL marked a return to the doctrine established in the Board's 1999 St. Elizabeth Manor, Inc. decision, which held a new bargaining relationship between an incumbent union and a new employer was protected for a reasonable period of time and not subject to any challenge to the union's representative status. Under UGL, an incumbent union is entitled to represent a successor's employees for a reasonable period of not less than six months before its majority status can lawfully be questioned.

The appeals court rejected the employer's contention that the UGL standard did not merit Chevron deference given the Board's flip-flopping over the years, noting that an agency "is not forever bound by an earlier resolution of an interpretive issue." It must, however, offer a "reasoned explanation" when it does change direction, and expressly articulate that it is parting with precedent, which the Board did here. Specifically, there was a sharp uptick in the number of corporate mergers and acquisitions and, as a result, a corresponding increase in successorship situations. This led the Board to conclude that, rather than a rebuttable presumption of continuing majority support, the successor bar better effectuated the policies of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) "in the context of today's economy." This reasoning was sound and, in the view of the appeals court, the Board had "brought up to date the commercial reality ignored by the MV Transportation majority" (NLRB v. Lily Transportation Corp., March 31, 2017).

Weingarten rights—a lawful response when a union rep cannot be found. The District of Columbia Circuit rejected the NLRB's conclusion that an employer acted unlawfully when a supervisor asked an employee to fill out a written statement after he had requested a union representative. The appeals court concluded the Board's finding was inconsistent with established precedent and not supported by substantial evidence. In assessing a situation to determine whether an employee's Weingarten rights have been violated, the Board must take into account the context in which a request for union representation has been made, said the court, and the mere fact an employee's request for union representation cannot be met does not mean the employer can do nothing further, and does not, without more, mean the employer has committed an unfair labor practice.

In this case, a hotel bellman was summoned to meet with supervisors after a guest complained about him. Informed that the meeting could result in discipline, the bellman declined to provide a statement without a union representative present. When a union representative could not be located, the bellman again refused to provide a statement. Following the refusal, the hotel placed him on leave with pay pending further investigation and instructed him to leave the premises.

The Board found that the hotel violated the NLRA. The appeals court, however, disagreed, concluding that the supervisors' actions were fair, reasonable, and entirely consistent with Weingarten. After the bellman asked for a union representative, they worked diligently to comply with his request. Before ending the interview, they gave him the option to fill out a written statement, which he refused to do. It was clear that the employer never resisted or undermined the employee's invocation of his right to seek union representation. There was no suggestion that the supervisors threatened or intimidated him, and they stopped asking questions after he requested a union representative (Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB, April 25, 2017).

Employer must bargain over noncompete. A unionized employer unlawfully implemented a mandatory confidentiality and noncompete agreement for new hires without giving the union notice and an opportunity to bargain, the D.C. Circuit held, upholding an NLRB finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. The appeals court also affirmed the Board's holding that two specific provisions of the agreement—an at-will clause and a prohibition on "Interference with Relationships"—independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The employer argued it had the right to impose the new agreement because it was at "the core of entrepreneurial control" and had "only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship." The Board, however, had found the agreement did have a direct economic impact on employees since it imposed a cost on them in the form of lost employment opportunities and also imposed "costs on employees by broadly restricting their ability to benefit from their discoveries, inventions, and acquired knowledge" obtained by working for the company. Consequently, the agreement was precisely the kind of matter that was suitable for bargaining, the appeals court said (Minteq International, Inc. v. NLRB, April 28, 2017).

Another circuit rejects class action waivers. Adding its voice to the debate, a divided Sixth Circuit agreed with the NLRB that an employer violated the NLRA by barring employees from pursuing class or collective workplace legal claims. The appeals court joined the reasoning of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, holding that arbitration provisions that mandate individual arbitration of employment-related claims violate the NLRA and fall within the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The appeals court also found that the Fifth Circuit reached the incorrect conclusion in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, which held that arbitration provisions mandating individual arbitration of employment- related claims do not violate the NLRA and are enforceable under the FAA. Of course, the final word on the matter will come from the Supreme Court of the United States, which, when it reconvenes in October, will take up the question of whether class and collective action waivers in employment arbitration agreements violate the NLRA and whether the FAA, in any case, trumps the NLRA (NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., May 26, 2017).

Order to turn over witness statement enforced. The D.C. Circuit affirmed a controversial 3–2 NLRB decision finding an employer violated the NLRA when it refused to provide a union with a witness statement from a charge nurse who had seen a nurse's aide sleeping on duty. Leaving aside the larger issue, however, the appeals court did not address the Board's decision to overrule its blanket exemption protecting confidential witness statements from disclosure. The employer lacked standing to challenge the Board's new rule, the appeals court held, since the Board did not apply the rule in the case at hand (American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens v. NLRB, June 6, 2017).

King Soopers affirmed. One of many Board rulings that caused concern among employers was the NLRB's modification of its make-whole remedy to require employers to fully compensate discriminatees for search-for-work and work-related expenses incurred in connection with interim employment. Upholding the Board's action, the D.C. Circuit found the agency's change to its remedial framework was lawful, reasonable, and fully justified. In the past, the Board had declined to award search-for-work and interim employment expenses that exceeded a complainant's interim earnings, but it acknowledged it had never explained or justified its approach. In this case, the Board found its traditional approach not only failed to make victims of unlawful discrimination whole, but also likely discouraged complainants in their job search efforts. Its new remedial framework was necessary, the Board explained, to ensure that make-whole remedies fully compensated unlawfully-discharged employees for losses incurred, and deterred further violations of the Act (King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB, June 9, 2017).

Claim that sandwiches "contaminated" not protected. In an en banc decision, the Eighth Circuit declined to enforce the NLRB's determination that a Jimmy John's franchisee violated the NLRA by disciplining and firing employees who used posters to disparage the employer's sandwiches. The court reasoned that the posters, which implied that Jimmy John's sandwiches posed a health threat to consumers, were so disloyal as to exceed the protections of the Act, under the Supreme Court's controlling Jefferson Standard (NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, IBEW) test. The appeals court rejected the Board's apparently dispositive reliance on its finding that the posters were not "maliciously untrue." The court did, however, enforce a separate portion of the Board's order finding that the employer acted unlawfully when its managers used Facebook postings to disparage and harass a leading union supporter for his protected activities (MikLin Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Jimmy John's v. NLRB, July 3, 2017).

Casino surveillance technicians are "guards." The day-to-day duties of surveillance technicians at two Las Vegas casinos included enforcing rules against coworkers, the D.C. Circuit concluded. As such, they were "guards" as defined by the NLRA. Section 9(b)(3) of the Act, in part, defines guards as individuals who "enforce ... rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer's premises." Most significantly, Section 9(b)(3) prohibits the Board from certifying any union to represent guards if the union also admits as members individuals who are not guards. Since the union involved in this case concededly admitted nonguards as members, the appeals court refused to enforce the Board's order directing the casinos to recognize and bargain with the union in a bargaining unit comprised of the surveillance technicians.

In finding the techs to be statutory guards, the court noted that they control the casinos' surveillance, access, and alarm systems and help investigate errant employee behavior. The casinos rely on a sophisticated network of cameras, locks, alarms, and computers in safeguarding property and deterring, detecting, and prosecuting criminal acts. Surveillance techs work with both the surveillance and security departments and have wide-ranging duties installing the systems, as well as using hidden cameras in targeted investigations of other employees suspected of wrongdoing. Techs do not confront or interview the targeted employee; their role is limited to ensuring proper coverage and retrieving surveillance footage. But the techs' participation is crucial because no other employees can install secret cameras. Moreover, the techs are "key employees" under Nevada gaming regulations, and therefore, they are subject to special restrictions and background checks. The record as a whole demonstrated that the techs performed "an essential step in the procedure for enforcement" of rules to protect the casinos' property and patrons, including enforcement against their fellow employees, the appeals court concluded. Consequently, the techs were guards, and it was improper to certify the union as their bargaining representative (Bellagio, LLC d/b/a Bellagio Las Vegas v. NLRB, July 18, 2017).

Joint-employer analysis rejected. The D.C. Circuit found that the NLRB, in a pre-Browning-Ferris decision, had inexplicably departed from precedent when it held that CNN America was a joint employer along with the unionized outside contractors that provided staffing for the network's technical operations. The matter arose after CNN brought those technical functions in-house and then refused to recognize and bargain with the union that had represented the contractors' employees. The appeals court held the NLRB's joint-employer determination could not be sustained because its analysis was inconsistent with its own precedent—specifically, with two 1984 decisions that set the governing standard for determining joint- employer status. The court held that without addressing that precedent or explaining why it did not control the outcome, the Board's decision could not be sustained. In contrast, the court pointed to the Board's later decision in Browning- Ferris, which is also pending in the D.C. Circuit, but where the Board carefully examined three decades of precedent and articulated a specific and reasonable justification for overruling that precedent. Because the Board failed to either overrule or adequately distinguish or modify its own precedent in the CNN decision, the court rejected its joint- employer determination. However, the court went on to note: "Our conclusion does not bar the Board from finding CNN to be a joint employer by applying a different standard or sufficiently explaining the one it did apply." While the court held that the Board's finding of joint-employer status could not be affirmed, it further concluded that the Board's decision finding CNN to be a legal successor could be, and was, sustained (NLRB v. CNN America, Inc., August 4, 2017).

Board rulings

More Election Rule problems. The NLRB found that the results of a Board election must be set aside where 90 percent of the addresses on the voter list provided by the employer were inaccurate, the names of at least 15 eligible employees were omitted, and the list did not provide phone numbers for any of the employees. In a partial dissent, Chairman Miscimarra observed that the decision illustrated the downside of the Election Rule's preoccupation with speed between petition-filing and the election. Moreover, he asserted, the expanded voter-list disclosure requirements inappropriately failed to accommodate employees' privacy interests. While he agreed with the Board that the election should be set aside because the bulk of the addresses were incorrect, he would not decide whether the omission of 15 employees from the list independently required a new election. Separately, the Board found that a string of text messages between a supervisor and an employee that included asking whether the employee was working for the employer or the union constituted unlawful interrogation (RHCG Safety Corp., June 7, 2017).

Employee unlawfully barred after filing suit. An employer acted unlawfully by denying a former employee access to its hotel/casino facility after she and another employee filed a collective action. The employer routinely allowed former employees to patronize its facility and attend social functions, but denied the employee in question based on her protected activity, said the Board majority, concluding that Section 7 of the NLRA prohibits such retaliatory action. In dissent, Member Miscimarra argued that when enacting the NLRA, Congress did not intend to guarantee that all former employees would have a right of access to the private property of their former employers whenever they joined other employees in a non-NLRA lawsuit against their former employers. While the employer's action may have constituted retaliation for the worker's pursuit of the FLSA claim, the NLRB is not statutorily empowered to police the nonretaliation provisions of statutes other than the NLRA (MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC, May 16, 2017).

Small company was successor of national company. A school district terminated the special education portion of its bus transportation contract with a large unionized transit company and awarded it to a small company specializing in transport services for special needs students. A divided NLRB determined that the small company became a legal "successor" to the larger unionized company and that it violated the NLRA by failing to recognize and bargain with the union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the drivers and monitors. Arguing that the majority disregarded and misapplied a fundamental aspect of successorship law, Member Miscimarra dissented. While both entities engaged in the business of transporting certain students from point A to point B, the essential part of the smaller company's business was unique and involved particularized transport needs associated with special education students. Further, it did not take over any of the larger company's facilities or purchase any of its buses or equipment. Further still, the smaller company did not take over its operations; rather, it merely took over the contract for special education children. It also configured new routes and increased the number of routes, and, although it hired some of the larger company's employees, it conducted a genuine application and hiring process. Thus, Member Miscimarra argued, the Board could not reasonably find that the essential successorship element of a substantial continuity of the business existed (Allways East Transportation, Inc., May 11, 2017).

Unlawful solicitation of grievances. During the course of a union organizing campaign at a nursing home the chief operating officer (COO) of the home's parent corporation paid an infrequent visit to the facility. He was aware that there had been complaints about the home's interim director. During his visit he approached one of the employees who had complained and asked her "how things were going." The employee repeated her concerns about the interim director of nursing, and the COO told the employee that he would "follow up and look into" it. He also discussed the employee's union activities.

Over the dissent of Member Miscimarra, a Board majority found the exchange to constitute an unlawful solicitation of grievances and implied promise to remedy them. Because the employer had not previously addressed employee complaints in quite this manner, it failed to rebut an inference of illegality under the NLRB's Maple Grove Health Care Center framework, according to the majority (Mek Arden, LLC d/b/a Arden Post Acute Rehab, July 25, 2017).

Legislative activity

Undoing Obama Board actions. On June 14, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, which would amend the NLRA to roll back the Obama-era's so-called "quickie election" rule. The Senate bill, S. 1350, would undo the revised election rule's problematic features, which sharply curtailed the time in which employers can respond to a union organizing campaign and the extent to which they can raise pre-election challenges. Specifically, the legislation would mandate that union elections not be held in fewer than 35 days; provide employers at least 14 days to prepare their cases to present before an NLRB election officer and protect their right to raise additional concerns throughout the pre-election hearing; require the NLRB to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and address any questions of voter eligibility before the union is certified; and give employers at least seven days to provide a list of employee names and one additional piece of contact information chosen by each individual employee in order to protect his or her privacy. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce cleared H.R. 2776, the House version of the bill, on June 29. The measure also rolls back the NLRB's controversial standard for recognizing "micro" bargaining units.

On June 29, the House advanced two other legislative proposals to reform the NLRA, passing each of them out of committee on a 22–16 party-line vote. The Employee Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2775), introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), "[e]mpowers workers to control the disclosure of their personal information" by reversing policies ushered in by the Obama NLRB that afford labor unions greater access to employee contact information during union organizing campaigns. The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 (H.R. 986) would, according to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN), protect the sovereignty of Native American tribes from bureaucratic overreach and ensure tribes have control over their labor relations by exempting tribal enterprises from NLRB jurisdiction.

Disarming the NLRB. On July 20, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced legislation that would effectively strip the NLRB of its power to prosecute and adjudicate labor disputes. Instead, that power would be transferred to federal courts. Under the Protecting American Jobs Act (S. 1594), the NLRB would continue to conduct investigations, but the Board would be unable to prosecute any alleged violations. The bill is cosponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), James Lankford (R-OK), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Luther Strange (R-AL), and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

The measure also would limit the NLRB's rulemaking authority to rules concerning the internal functions of the Board. The agency would be barred from "promulgating rules or regulations that affect the substantive or procedural rights of any person, employer, employee, or labor organization, including rules and regulations concerning unfair labor practices and representation elections." Conforming amendments would be made to the NLRA.

According to Lee, "the NLRB has acted as judge, jury, and executioner for labor disputes in this country." The Protecting American Jobs Act would restore "fairness and accountability" to federal labor laws. Lee introduced similar bills in the last two Congresses, but they never even received committee consideration. However, the legislation may have better odds given the current Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Littler Mendelson
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
Littler Mendelson
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions