New York Labor and Employment Law Report : New York Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Bond Schoeneck & King Law Firm : NY Labor Relations, Employee Benefits

Earlier this year, we posted on the New York State Department of Labor’s new regulations governing New York’s WARN Act, the state statute that requires certain employers to provide 90 days notice to employees, their employees’ unions, if any, and to government agencies, before engaging in certain actions which result in losses of employment. In July, the New York DOL issued revised emergency regulations which replace and supersede the existing regulations. The revisions are not extensive. However, a few of the changes may be significant for New York employers contemplating some form of reduction in force or work hours.

First, the new regulations change the definition of the term “affected employee” by stating that it does not include an officer, director, or shareholder. The initial regulation only excluded business partners, and consultants and contract employees who have employment relationships with other employers or who are self-employed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Department of Labor recently added to its website opinion letters written by its Counsel’s Office. The Counsel's Office provides legal advice and counsel to the Commissioner of Labor and to programs within the Department. The opinion letters are primarily responses to requests for advice submitted by employers. All the letters are text-searchable.  They cover three general topics: wage and hour law, public works projects and the State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”). The wage and hour law letters span a wide variety of topics from blood donation leave and accommodations for nursing mothers to employment classifications, independent contractor issues, meal and rest periods, overtime, and wage deductions under Labor Law Section 193. The public works projects letters deal with state requirements for payment of the prevailing wage (the local union wage) by private employers performing work on public works projects. Most of those letters address whether the prevailing wage law applies to particular types of work. There are only a few opinion letters related to WARN, which is not surprising because the statute and its implementing regulations are still relatively new. Interestingly, none of the letters made publicly available predate 2007, the first year of a newly elected Democratic administration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An employer that has entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA, or that has been found in violation of OSHA regulations or the general duty clause--either by order of an Administrative Law Judge or as a consequence of accepting a citation--should adhere to all provisions of any agreement, and abate all cited conditions. An OSHA Area Office may assess a failure to abate penalty of up to $7,000 per citation item per day for each day the condition is not abated. Normally, the maximum time period is 30 days, for a maximum penalty per citation item of $210,000, but that time period may be increased in exceptional circumstances.

Last week, OSHA issued citations of over $200,000 each to two New York businesses. The first, totaling $210,000, was issued to Broadway Corp., doing business as Broadway Concrete, for failing to abide by a settlement agreement entered into after first receiving a citation for lack of fall protection back in 2008. OSHA conducted a follow-on inspection in January of this year, and in the new citation alleges that Broadway Concrete performed work at eight sites in New York City without adequate fall protection, in violation of the settlement agreement. The second citation issued last week, totaling $247,000, was issued to U.F.S. Industries, doing business as Sally Sherman Foods, for failing to abate conditions previously cited--lack of fall protection, machine guarding, and inadequate lockout/tagout--following a prior inspection at its Mount Vernon facility.

New York Area Offices have recently issued several other high-penalty failure-to-abate citations, suggesting that this may signal a new direction in enforcement in Region 2 (which includes New York and New Jersey):
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

            On July 23, 2010, the Supreme Court of Albany County upheld the constitutionality of Chapter 45 of the Laws of 2010. Chapter 45, which was signed into law by Governor David Paterson on April 14, 2010, creates an early retirement incentive for employees in positions represented by collective bargaining units affiliated with the New York State United Teachers (“NYSUT”) who belong to either the New York State Employee Retirement System (“ERS”) or the New York State Teachers Retirement System (“TRS”), are at least 55 years of age, and have attained at least 25 years of creditable service (“55/25 Legislation”). The 55/25 Legislation allows eligible employees to retire without the reduction in retirement benefits that would normally apply to retirement system members who are on Tiers 2, 3, or 4, and who do not have 30 years of service. A more complete description of the 55/25 Legislation is set forth here.

            Two days after the 55/25 Legislation was signed into law, on April 16, 2010, the Empire State Supervisors and Administrators Association (“ESSAA”), a union that represents primarily administrators and supervisors in public school districts, and the Baldwin Supervisors Association (“BSA”), a local affiliate of the ESSAA, initiated a court proceeding challenging the 55/25 Legislation. Specifically, the ESSAA and BSA alleged that the 55/25 Legislation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution, by limiting eligibility only to individuals who are employed in positions represented by collective bargaining units affiliated with NYSUT. The ESSAA and BSA argued that the 55/25 Legislation violated their rights to equal protection and freedom of association.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of its Spring 2010 regulatory agenda, the U.S. Department of Labor (“USDOL”) has indicated it plans to revise its longstanding interpretation of federal law on the reporting and disclosure requirements for employers in connection with a union’s organizing campaign. Such reporting is required under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), which contains various financial disclosure requirements for employers, unions and others. Among other things, the LMRDA requires employers to file annual reports with the federal government to disclose agreements made with third parties (and any associated payments), where a purpose of the agreement is to persuade employees with respect to their right to unionize. A willful failure to submit a required report or material false statements made on the report are crimes.

However, the LMRDA does not require reporting to the federal government where the services rendered relate to the “giving or agreeing to give advice” to an employer. Since at least 1962, the long-standing interpretation of the “advice exception” excludes from reporting various persuader activities performed by third party consultants, including the preparation of documents and materials to be used by the employer during the organizing campaign. As long as the third party consultant does not meet directly with employees in connection with persuader activities, agreements relating to these types of services need not be reported. The Office of Labor-Management Standards, which enforces the LMRDA, states that the advice exception has been “broadly interpreted to exclude from reporting any agreement under which a consultant engages in activities on behalf of the employer to persuade employees concerning their bargaining rights but has no direct contact with employees, even where the consultant is orchestrating a campaign to defeat a union organizing effort.” (Emphasis added). In fact, Judge (now Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg upheld this interpretation of the “advice exception” when the United Auto Workers sought to challenge the agency’s position in the late 1980s. U.A.W. v. Dole, 869 F.2d 616 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link