NLRB confirms unionized employers may adopt handbook

In Stericycle, Inc., 370 N.L.R.B. No. 89 (2/17/2021), the NLRB held that an employer may adopt and issue handbooks to its workforce, including unionized bargaining unit members, even where that language on its face is contrary to the union’s collective bargaining agreement, so long as it does not purport to apply that inconsistent language to the bargaining unit. In Stericycle, the company had not historically distributed its handbook to the union’s bargaining unit members. There had been two versions of the handbook over the years, and neither had been given to those workers. When a third was developed, its distributees did include the bargaining unit workers.  Unfortunately the handbook did not contain a clear disclaimer that the CBA would control in the case of any conflict with the CBA; rather, it contained a disclaimer to the effect that “some benefits may not apply to union team members and in some cases the policies may be impacted by collective bargaining agreements.” The union claimed its bargaining unit employees were indeed “impacted,” as the union pointed out many policies were contrary to the CBA. To complicate the situation further, the company had not involved the union or even given the union notice and an opportunity to discuss the handbook before implementing it. In a hotly split decision, the Board voted to reverse the lower decision and held that the company had not violated the NLRA, reasoning that the company’s disclaimer language was clear enough to suggest that the CBA would control and further that the union had failed to produce any evidence that the company had intended otherwise.

/0 Comments/by

Seventh Circuit holds that employers may have to provide paid USERRA leave if it provides pay for other comparable leaves

USERRA is the federal military leave law that requires employers to provide workers time-off for military-related leaves. USERRA leave is generally unpaid. However USERRA, sec. 4316(b),  provides that employees must receive “such other rights and benefits not determined by seniority as are generally provided by the employer of the person to employees having similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough or leave of absence under a contract, agreement, policy, practice, or plan in effect at the commencement of such or established while such person performs such service.”

The Seventh Circuit recently held in a case involving United Airlines that sec. 4316(b)’s “other rights and benefits” language includes “comparable” paid leave. The Seventh Circuit looked to DOL regulations, 20 CFR 1002.150(b), that explain paid leave is “comparable” and must be provided to USERRA leave-takers if is is comparable in terms of “the duration of the leave,” as well as “the purpose of the leave and the ability of the employee to choose when to take the leave.” However, it cautioned as to the last factor — the ability to schedule leave — an employee’s voluntary decision to enlist should not be considered.

Did United Airlines owe its pilot pay for time he took off for “periodic military-training sessions” under its jury duty policy, its sick leave policy or any of its “other short-term” paid leave policies? The Seventh Circuit held it did not have sufficient evidence to weight the comparability of such leaves; therefore, it remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration.

Source: White v. United Airlines, Inc., — F.3d —, 2021 WL 365210 (7th Cir. 2/3/2021)

/0 Comments/by

Fun morning on 850 KOA talking about Impeachment 2.0

Fun morning today talking about the legal issues involved with the second impeachment trial of former President Trump, including the Senate’s jurisdiction over a former official and the First Amendment.

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit rejects argument that statutory offer of settlement in Colorado impliedly released other claims much less future lawsuits

Colorado law, CRS 13-17-202, allows defendants in litigation to make what is called a statutory offer of settlement. In a statutory offer of settlement, a defendant in litigation may offer to pay the plaintiff a certain amount in settlement of the claims being litigated, which, if not accepted, the plaintiff must beat at trial, in other words, not only win at trial but obtain an even greater award in the verdict, otherwise the plaintiff becomes liable for the defendant’s actual costs. Colorado law provides that the offer of settlement may not include any other non-monetary term; it must be a pure offer to settle for a sum certain.

In this case, the plaintiff sued his former employer in Colorado’s federal court, alleging wrongful discharge. The defendant extended an offer of settlement in the amount of $100,000.00. The company advised he accepted the offer but noted that he waived no other rights, including the right to bring future lawsuits. The company said, wait, not so fast, it had intended its offer of settlement to require the plaintiff to settle all claims he might have had “without any qualifications.”

Although that was the company’s asserted intent, the Tenth Circuit noted that the company failed to say in its offer of settlement that other lawsuits and claims needed to be released. Further the Tenth Circuit noted, even if it had, that Colorado statutory offer of settlement process does not permit non-monetary terms to be included in the offer. Thus, the Tenth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument.

Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit rejected the trial court’s analysis of the issue as well. The trial court had ruled that the plaintiff and his former employer had failed to reach a “meeting of the minds.” The Tenth Circuit held that Colorado’s statutory offer of settlement process did not require a “meeting of the minds” or even judicial involvement for the settlement to be effective. Rather, the statutory process required merely that a defendant extend an offer under CRS 13-17-202, which the Tenth Circuit held this company had, and that, within the statutory deadline, the plaintiff accept that offer, which the Tenth Circuit held this plaintiff had. At that point, the settlement was effective: the company owed plaintiff $100,000; in exchange the plaintiff’s claims in that lawsuit should have been dismissed as settled; however, no other settlement or release occurred, thus the company was indeed at risk that plaintiff might file future lawsuits.

It is noted that the company may still have some protection against future litigation. Under different principles (including claim preclusion, issue preclusion and res judicatta), the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of one lawsuit precludes the assertion of the same claims or substantially similar related claims.

Source: Oldenburg v. American Motor Insurance Co., Inc., — F.3d —, case no. 20-1209, 2021 BL 25071 (10th Cir. 1/26/21).

/0 Comments/by