DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Greg Lisemby

Greg Lisemby

Protecting the Right to Organize Act – PRO Act

By

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, for the purpose of expanding labor protections related to employees’ rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace. It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization, and it would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The PRO Act would weaken “right-to-work” laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.

Background

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, also known as the PRO Act, follows a series of past legislation passed by Congress concerning labor rights. A number of landmark bills were passed during the New Deal period, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered one of the most important Acts of Congress at the time.

Following the New Deal, a number of bills were passed which restricted the activities of labor unions. Among these was the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act), which among other things prohibited secondary boycotts and closed shops.

In 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act, another bill which would have amended the National Labor Relations Act, failed to pass.

In the State of California, following the passage of California Assembly Bill 5, Proposition 22 was passed in 2020. Proposition 22 was intended to classify so-called gig workers for app-based companies (such as Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Postmates) as “independent contractors” rather than full employees.

Content of the PRO Act

The PRO Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (also known as the Landrum–Griffin Act).

According to the summary text of the PRO Act, it revises definitions under labor law, permits labor unions to encourage participation in secondary strikes, and prohibits employers from litigating against unions which conduct such secondary strikes:

Among other things, it (1) revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards; (2) permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and (3) prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.

The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired. It would also allow unions to override “right-to-work laws”, allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union. Right-to-work laws exist in 27 U.S. states, and the PRO Act would weaken these laws in favor of workers. It would also make illegal company-sponsored mandatory meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization. The PRO Act would classify some workers who are classified now as “independent contractors”, instead as “employees”. The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define an employee as:

“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”

This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively. This would potentially include those who work for app-based companies such as Uber, DoorDash, or Lyft, and overall could include hundreds of thousands or millions of workers. The bill would allow for workers to sue employers and would make it easier for employees to join a union.

Support for the PRO Act

A letter signed by over 100 labor unions, advocacy organizations, churches, and political groups supported the PRO Act. This included but not limited to the AFL-CIO, EPI, Public Citizen, AFT, Sunrise Movement, CPD, SEIU, PFAW, CWA, FoEI, HRW, USW, IWPR, GBCS, IFPTE, NETWORK, Patriotic Millionaires, and Oxfam. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO said, “If you really want to correct inequality in this country … passing the PRO Act is absolutely essential to doing that.” The bill has received backing from the Labor Caucus and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Joe Biden endorsed the PRO Act, and has called labor law reform one of the top priorities of his administration.

Legislative Activity

On February 4, 2021, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-03) introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 in the House of Representatives. Of the bill’s 213 cosponsors, 3 – Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), and Chris Smith (NJ-04) – were Republicans; the other 210 were Democrats.

The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 225 to 206 on March 9, 2021. Five House Republicans (Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko, Chris Smith, Jeff Van Drew, and Don Young) joined the House Democrats in voting for it, while one Democrat (Henry Cuellar) voted against it. The bill now advances to the U.S. Senate; however, the bill is unlikely to pass as it would require universal Democratic support and 10 Republican crossover votes to pass in case of a filibuster.

Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash

Could Trucking Companies Be Liable for Accidents Caused by Snow and Ice in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex?

By

The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex has seen its share of trucking accidents. And recently, a historic 100+ vehicle collision occurred amid icy road conditions on I-35 in Fort Worth tragically caused large scale personal injury and a number of deaths.  This incident raised questions for many regarding the liability of commercial trucking companies when weather conditions deteriorate.

If a trucking accident occurs, it becomes important to determine who may have been responsible for causing the collision. If a truck driver’s actions or inactions caused the accident to happen, the driver could be held liable for losses. And because drivers act on behalf of their employers, a driver’s trucking company could also be held responsible for compensating crash victims. 

The Role of Weather

One common question victims have is: what happens if a truck accident is caused by bad weather? Snow and ice happen in Texas, and bad weather is certainly not anyone’s fault. So if the truck crash occurs due to a storm or poor road conditions, could the trucking company be held responsible?

In many cases, the answer to this question is yes. If a truck driver causes an accident during bad weather, the trucker and trucking company could still be made to pay victims damages, as long as the victims can prove the truck driver was negligent. An attorney can provide assistance in demonstrating negligence.

Although snow and ice can make roads more dangerous, these bad weather conditions are not always the ultimate cause of truck crashes that happen during the winter. Instead, it is sometimes the truck driver’s actions within the snow and ice that may cause the truck collision to occur.

State and Federal Regulations

The State of Texas and Federal Departments of Transportation have specific safety rules and regulations that govern the operation of commercial motor vehicles when hazardous conditions exist.  These rules mandate that “Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet… adversely affect visibility or traction.  Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated.” Under the federal safety regulations, commercial vehicles traveling in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex might should have been aware of the hazardous conditions, which would have required truck drivers to reduce their speed or pull over and stop until the road conditions were safe.

In other words, a professional truck driver has a legal duty to adjust his or her driving skills to account for snowy and icy conditions. If a truck driver does not change the way he or she drives to ensure safety, he or she can be held liable for any crash that happens as a result. And if a commercial truck driver does not drive with a reasonable level of confidence and make safe choices when it comes to driving in a snow storm, he or she could be held responsible.

Reasonable Precautions

If a commercial truck driver continues driving when conditions are unsafe and fails to take reasonable precautions like slowing down on icy roads, a crash victim might be able to prove the trucker failed to live up to his or her duty to drive in a safe manner. An attorney may be able to provide assistance to victims of winter truck accidents by demonstrating how the crashes occurred determining whether the truck drivers took unsafe risks given the weather conditions during a given timeframe. If a victim can successfully prove a trucking company failed to meet its obligations under the law, the victim may be compensated for both economic and non-financial damages occurring as a direct result of the bad-weather trucking accident.

Final Rule: Independent Contractor Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act

By

29 CFR Parts 780, 788, and 795

A final rule clarifying the standard for employee versus independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was announced by the Department of Labor (Department) on January 6, 2021. The effective date of the final rule is March 8, 2021 and includes a multi-factor test for determining whether workers are independent contractors, meaning that the business they perform work for doesn’t have to pay minimum wage or overtime that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires for employees.

Clarifications in the final rule

  • Sets forth an “economic reality” test to determine whether an individual is in business for him or herself (independent contractor) or is economically dependent on a potential employer for work (FLSA employee.)
  • Identifies and explains two “core factors” that are most probative to the question of whether a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business or is in business for him or herself:
    • The nature and degree of control over the work.
    • The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment.
  • Identifies three other factors that may serve as additional guideposts in the analysis, particularly when the two core factors do not point to the same classification. The factors are:
    • The amount of skill required for the work.
    • The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer.
    • Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.
  • Provides that the actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible.
  • Provides six fact-specific examples applying the factors.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2021.

Will the independent contractor status Rule be permanent? 

The rule clarifying independent contractor status is scheduled to become effective on March 8, 2021. However, a spokesperson for the Biden administration called out the rule as one that the administration is likely to revise in the days before its publication, bringing into question whether it will ever be permitted to take effect. In addition, independent contractor/employee status has been the topic of a great deal of litigation in recent years, so we can expect to see challenges should the rule is permitted to take effect.

Can Employers Require Workers to Become Vaccinated against Covid-19?

By

The country’s first Covid vaccine could be authorized for emergency use as soon as today. If Pfizer gets the green light, distribution is set to begin next week.

Roughly six in ten Americans say they would get a vaccine, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Although this exceeds the figure from two months ago, to achieve herd immunity experts opine that about 70% of the population would need to be vaccinated or have antibodies. 

Under the law, an employer can generally require its workers to be vaccinated and can also fire an employee who refuses to do so. Some notable exceptions, however, exist to the general rule. For example, if a work force is unionized, the collective bargaining agreement may require negotiating with the union before an employer can implement a vaccine requirement.

Anti-discrimination laws also provide some protections to workers that are disabled. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), workers who do not want to be vaccinated for specific medical reasons are eligible to request an exemption. In this case, an employer may need to provide reasonable accommodation, such as allowing the employee to work remotely. 

Another exception exists under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VII, if taking the vaccine would conflict with a sincerely held religious belief, a worker may be able to opt out of a vaccine requirement.

The initial FDA approval is expected to be an “emergency use authorization,” as opposed to full approval. The law is unclear as to whether one can mandate vaccinations based on an emergency use authorization. As such, employers may need to wait until the FDA completes the entire approval process before putting vaccination requirement protocols in place. 

Employees Working Remotely May Be Entitled to Overtime

By

overtime during COVID-19

Employees working remotely may be entitled to overtime. When state and local governments began issuing stay-at-home orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees suddenly found themselves working from home. This change in practice has increased the likelihood that employees will be working overtime. In many instances, employees working remotely will have access to technology or be taking on new responsibilities that they didn’t have when they worked primarily from their offices.

Basic overtime regulations

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governs overtime pay and record keeping for part-time and full-time workers in the private and public sectors. The FLSA divides employees into two categories. Nonexempt employees are generally paid hourly and are entitled to overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay beyond a 40-hour workweek. Employees are exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements if they work in certain executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions. Exempt employees are generally salaried and not entitled to overtime pay. However, they must be paid the same amount per pay period, regardless of how many hours they work. That is, they must be paid the same even if they work more or less than 40 hours.

“Off the Clock” work may result in overtime

Recent guidance from the Department of Labor notes that employers may encourage or require employees to work from home to control the spread of COVID-19. Employers, however, are not required to have telework programs in place. Working remotely does not change the federal wage-and-hour laws; they apply the same to employees working from home. And the same overtime laws still apply to employees working from home.

With large numbers of nonexempt employees working remotely, employers may have difficulty monitoring the number of hours the employees are actually working. And many employers may be unable to use the same compliance measures they used in the workplace to monitor the hours worked by their employees. Without such measures, it’s easy to see how employees could end up working longer than a normal eight-hour workday. Typical off-the-clock tasks such as reading and responding to emails, text messages and phone calls or conducting “a few minutes of research” can add up over the course of a week and lead to a claim for unpaid overtime wages.

While working from home may cut down on the time employees lose to commuting, it may also increase the chances that employees working remotely feel compelled to work overtime. As such, any employers should take reasonable steps to ensure that its nonexempt workers are being paid overtime for each hour its remote workers are performing, including any “off-the-clock” work performed on mobile phones or tablets.