Prior to the
In
Needless to say, this decision significantly raises the stakes for employers facing potential liability under the act, and leaves the door open for the board to expand further the scope of unfair labor practice remedies.
On an immediate level, the most impactful aspect of this decision relates to the addition of allegedly foreseeable pecuniary losses suffered by employees. As the board detailed in
Although the board declined to include even more nebulous categories of damages, such as pain and suffering, within the scope of its new make-whole standard in the
Given the general counsel's concerted effort to give more teeth to board remedies, it seems likely that the board will have ample opportunity to revisit that issue in future cases.
The board's new standard, articulated in
At that point, the burden will shift to the employer to establish facts that either negate or mitigate the alleged loss. Obviously, one of the most problematic areas for employers will be effectively determining its potential liability for what is foreseeable under this new standard.
Notably, this new remedial standard is not limited to cases brought against unionized employers; the act's provisions cover most private-sector employees, regardless of whether they are represented by a union.
So, while this decision is likely to be challenged in a federal court of appeal, and may eventually be overturned, for the time being it is particularly important for all employers covered by the act to ensure that policies and practices comply with the act.
Specifically, employers and labor counsel are well advised to recalibrate risk assessments involved in making decisions related to significant employment issues, such as individual terminations where any alleged "protected and concerted activity" is involved, reductions in force, union organizing campaigns, and — in the case of unionized employers — implementing unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment based on disputed contract language.
The following are key areas for consideration.
In reviewing any potential separation of employment where either a collective bargaining agreement or individual rights under the act are potentially implicated, an assessment of potential exposure should attempt to account for the enhanced remedies and enhanced exposure made available under
In unionized workplaces, disputed employment actions that the union would typically challenge via the grievance process — such as for-cause terminations or application of seniority language in conducting layoffs — may now be the subject of unfair labor practice charges (in addition to or in the place of grievances), given the potential availability of more robust remedies.
Employers and counsel should be prepared to fight the same battle on multiple fronts.
Given that damages now available in board proceedings are not available under all employment discrimination statutes, employers and counsel should be prepared for the possibility that plaintiffs' employment counsel will more regularly encourage individual litigants to file unfair labor practice charges.
In order to be prepared for this possibility, nonunionized employers will want to ensure that their employment handbooks, policies and practices are compliant with current board policies relating to workplace conduct rules and disciplinary measures.
Originally published by Law 360
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.
Mr
One
Box 82001
46282
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source