Third Circuit rules at least part of an asset-purchase agreement must be disclosed to union if requested

The Third Circuit recently held in Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. NLRB that at least portions of an asset-purchase agreement must be disclosed to a union representing workers in the seller’s workforce upon request. The seller had announced its intent to be acquired through an asset purchase and, in doing so, advised that workers in the union’s bargaining unit would be offered employment by the buyer subject to the terms and conditions of a new collective bargaining agreement that the buyer intended to negotiate with their union. The union requested a complete unredacted copy of the asset-purchase agreement (APA). The seller objected that the request was overly broad. The NLRB ruled against the seller, finding that at least some parts were clearly relevant and that it was, therefore, incumbent on the seller to produce the entire agreement or negotiate with the union an agreement to produce only parts. The NLRB found that provisions involving “’employees,’ terms and conditions of employment, the name of the hospitals, the continuation or expansion of certain service lines, capital investments, standards of care, equipment and property,” because those terms, at least, were “relevant to the availability and location of unit work, the potential for layoffs and hiring, whether the pension plan would be fully funded, and whether non-unit employees were receiving pay or benefits the Union might want to negotiate.”

The company then argued that disclosure of the APA would violate its confidentiality provisions and the nondisclosure obligations it owed the buyer. The Third Circuit rejected this argument as well, holding that a seller cannot immunize itself against disclosure to a union by negotiating confidentiality with the buyer.

/0 Comments/by

Colorado Court of Appeals rules for employer on vacation issue

In a previous post, it was noted that a case has been pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals involving an employer’s refusal to pay vacation at separation, despite the provisions of CRS 8-4-101 and a new regulation promulgated by the CDLE thereunder. The Court of Appeals has now ruled in the case, Blount v. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, that the employer was within its rights to refuse to pay out the vacation because it had clearly stated in its vacation policy that “Unused Vacation Allowances are not paid to Team Member at any time, including upon termination of employment.” The unpublished decision was not selected for official publication. It is also noted, as explained in this blog’s previous post, that this ruling is in apparent conflict and arguably contrary to the CDLE’s recent regulations and that the issue is currently pending before the Colorado Supreme Court in a different lawsuit.

/0 Comments/by

OFCCP clarifies and requests comments on Executive Order 13950 re EEO training by government contractors

On 9/22/2020 President Trump issued Executive Order 13950, which appears to prohibit government contractors who are subject to Executive Order 11246 (OFCCP jurisdiction) from undertaking EEO training that, merely reading the order on its face, might possibly even implicit bias trainings. In today’s Federal Register, 85 FR 67375, the OFCCP initiated rulemaking under the new Executive Order by soliciting “comments, information, and material” re such trainings.

In a widely reported and documented speech, U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia confirmed that Executive Order 13950 does not prohibit common EEO trainings, even those that include training on implicit bias.

I should be clear about what the President’s new Order does not do. It does not prohibit workplace training about non-discrimination and equal opportunity—that training is important, the Labor Department encourages it, and in some instances we require it. Nor does the Order prohibit the diversity training offered by countless American employers; training that, like my remarks today, emphasizes the importance of recognizing the value and worth of people of all races and creeds. American employers should value diversity and take extra strides to assure opportunity for those who in the past have been denied it—although they must do so in a way that does not discriminate against others based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics. Finally, the President’s Order does not prohibit trainings about pre-conceptions or biases that people may have—regardless of their race or sex—about people who are different, and which could cause slights or even discrimination that’s not intended. What the Order does prohibit, though, is instruction in which federal contractors tell workers that because of their particular race or sex, they are racist, morally culpable, or less worthy of being heard.

Rather, he announced, and the OFCCP’s regulatory publication today confirms, that Executive Order 13950 is getting at something it calls “race or sex scapegoating.” It is not clear what this term means since, as today’s regulatory publication confirms it has long already been prohibited as a subset (just one kind, or one example, of) what was already prohibited: “race or sex stereotyping.” The OFCCP explains this in today’s rulemaking publication, as follows:

As used in this request for information, “race or sex stereotyping” means “ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.” [4] “Race or sex scapegoating” means “assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex,” and includes claims “that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.” 

In short, Executive Order 13950 apparently does not prohibit the common kinds of EEO training, including on implicit bias, that companies currently use to combat race and sex discrimination, including unlawful harassment. It does apparently prohibit training that accuses the members of a particular gender or race of being “inherently inclined to oppress others.”

/0 Comments/by