- The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA)
ended its strike across the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports after
reaching a tentative wage agreement with the U.S. Maritime Alliance
(USMX). USMX, which represents port terminal operators, had
been in contract negotiations for several months before its
contract with the ILA, which represents nearly 50,000 dockworkers,
expired on Sept. 30, 2024. Prior to the three-day strike begun on
Oct. 1, 2024, USMX filed unfair labor practice charges with the
National Labor Relations Board alleging the union was not
bargaining in good faith by conditioning bargaining on USMX
accepting its wage proposal. In a joint statement at the end of the
strike, the parties said they have extended their master contract
until Jan. 15, 2025, while they continue negotiations on the
remaining issues. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. president
can intervene in work stoppages that may create a national
emergency, but President Joe Biden had not indicated he would
exercise any such rights.
- The United Auto Workers (UAW) is threatening to strike
against auto manufacturer Stellantis. The UAW claims
Stellantis is refusing to uphold its end of their collective
bargaining agreement that was reached following the union's
strike at the "Big Three" auto manufacturers in fall
2023. The UAW claims the union has a right to strike despite the
contract's active no-strike clause because the company has
violated the parties' agreement by failing to reopen an
assembly plant in Belvidere, Illinois. Stellantis said that a
reopening delay is not in violation of its contract. The UAW will
hold strike authorization votes with its members to approve a
strike against the company. The UAW local has also filed numerous
unfair labor practice charges against Stellantis.
- Employers continue to face challenges arguing to courts
outside of Texas that the Board is unconstitutionally structured.
Yapp USA Automotive Sys. Inc. v. NLRB, No. 24-12173 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 9, 2024); Alivio Medical Ctr. v. Abruzzo, No.
24-cv-007217 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2024). At least three Texas
federal judges have granted employer requests for injunctions to
pause underlying Board unfair labor practice proceedings on the
grounds that, among other issues, the presidential removal
procedures for Board members and administrative law judges violate
the U.S. Constitution. However, other federal jurisdictions have
not been as receptive. In two recent decisions, federal judges in
Michigan and Illinois rejected the respective employers'
requests to pause Board proceedings, saying the likelihood they
will be successful on the merits of their claims is not
substantial. Other cases making similar arguments are pending
across numerous federal courts.
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is withdrawing from a
memorandum of understanding on merger investigations with federal
labor agencies only a month after signing it. In late August
2024, the FTC, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the
Department of Labor, and the Board signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Labor
Issues in Merger Investigations. The memo was aimed at boosting
the antitrust agencies' ability to investigate the possible
effects of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets, with specific
interest in representation case activity and unfair labor practice
charges and their related decisions from the Board. The FTC did not
provide a reason for withdrawing but confirmed it "will
continue to closely scrutinize all issues related to mergers,
including potential impacts on labor, in accordance with its merger
guidelines."
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declines opining on the Board's new standard disfavoring certain severance agreement language. NLRB v. McLaren Macomb, Nos. 23-1335/23-1403 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024). The Board's new standard applies to all National Labor Relations Act-covered employees and restricts employers' use of certain confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, as well as releases of claims under the Act. After the Board found an employer's severance agreement violated the Act under the new standard, the Board petitioned the Sixth Circuit to enforce its decision. Although agreeing with the Board that the employer violated the Act by its conduct, the court limited its opinion to concluding that the employer violated the Act under the previous legal standard. The court declined to address the enforceability of the Board's new standard "or whether it correctly interpreted the [Act]" in changing its standard.
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.