Category Archives: Uncategorized

Summer! Fun! Employment Law Update All Day Training June 27!

file0001564894818

Please join me as I moderate and present at the Employment Law Update in California training in San Jose on June 27, 2013. My partner Anne Stromberg and Marc Jacuzzi of Simpson, Garrity, Innes and Jacuzzi, P.C. will be talking about the following:
* Hiring, Counseling and Terminating Employees
* Wage and Hour Law Update
* FMLA, ADA, FEHA and Workers’ Compensation
* Sexual and Other Unlawful Harassment in the Workplace
* Harassment Investigations

The training will be at the San Jose Airport Garden Hotel (1740 North First Street in San Jose). 6.50 hours of HRCI credit are available – and there is also MCLE, CPE and CPP/FPC credit.

To sign up/ register, please click here.

I’ll be speaking at HR West – Join me!

Button_FINAL_A_1I’ll be presenting at HR West 2013 in April! My topic is “Conducting an Employee Relations Self Audit”. HR West is the largest gathering of HR professionals in Northern California — bringing together more than 600 practitioners for unparalleled networking and excellent education. Join me at the conference! Visit http://www.hrwest.org for complete details.

HR West brings you…

• World-renowned keynotes: Gautum Mukunda, Paul Alofs, Shari Harley
• Over 90 concurrent sessions
• Up to 17.25 recertification credits toward your HR certification
• Executive education led by Cort Worthington, Haas School of Business
• Pre-conference HR Hack. Put your ‘hacker’ mind to work on HR issues
• Award-winning HR certification courses the weekend before

I look forward to seeing you there.

So there’s free speech and then there’s Extra Special Free Speech!

file0001719225336Another case that has provoked interest in audiences for my 2013 Employment Law Updates is Ralph’s Grocery Co. v. UFCW Union Local 8. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that labor unions can picket on private property.

In Ralph’s, a Sacramento-area warehouse grocery store employed workers not represented by a labor union. UFCW Union Local 8 began picketing the store’s only entrance to encourage people not to shop at the store. Ralph’s asked the union to stop and it refused. Ralph’s told the police that the union was trespassing on private property and asked the police to stop the picketing. The police refused to do so without a court order. Ralph’s sought a court order and the end result is this case.

The reason the case is so interesting is that it gives labor union speech more protection than other speech – such as picketing to object to genetically modified foods, or to ask for donations to support a cause.

Before this case, labor unions already had a special exemption under California’s trespass prohibitions for lawful union activities. Union agents have a right to access private property if union members are on-site and working pursuant to a valid collective bargaining agreement or other union agreement for that site. Agents have a right to come onto the property, police the union agreement, prepare steward’s reports, and conduct workplace safety inspections. This exception to the general trespass rule arises, however, only if there is a valid union agreement in place.

In Ralph’s, the Court expanded union rights on private property. The Court agreed that the area in front of the store was not a “public forum” (a public area where free speech is usually protected) and there was no labor agreement in place. Usually, this would mean that the union would not be entitled to the constitutional free speech protection. But the Court held that the activity was entitled protection under California labor laws that do not allow a court to enjoin peaceful labor picketing.

A lower court found that these labor laws made union speech “more protected speech” than other speech – about your fundraising efforts, about your church, about girl scout cookies – which seems to be against the very nature of the free speech and equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. But the California Supreme Court found that labor-related speech can be afforded extra protection without violating the U.S. Constitution. Based on this ruling, a labor union may “peacefully” picket on private property without the owner’s permission. But get permission to sell those cookies.

Trick or Treat! New Laws for California Employers (some of them)

Coming soon . . . Well . . .not really soon – but on January 1, 2013!  While it is not even Halloween, California employers need to be aware of some new rules that will take effect in a few short months.

There are more, of course, but below I briefly discuss the ones creating the most noise. By “noise” I mean the ones talked  about on KCBS, or NPR, on the internet and in the break room. These are the ones that your employees know about and they expect demand that you comply:

Social Media Passwords.  If you have completely ignored the advice of almost every lawyer I know  and have required your employees and applicants to turn over their social media passwords, now you really need to stop.  Starting January 1, 2013, an employer can’t require or request an employee or applicant for his or her username or password to access personal social media.  There are exceptions.  One is if the employer thinks the disclosure is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct or illegal acts by an employee.  Another is if the employer is using the information to access an electronic device the employer issued.  The exceptions should not be utilized without consulting with your lawyer.

Religious Accommodation.  The vague rules governing religious accommodation in employment were modified.  California employees are protected from discrimination based on “religion,” “religious observance,” and “religious belief” and a new law clarifies that these protections include religious dress and grooming practices.  Employees are protected in their wearing of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, and artifacts.  The new law also specifically forbids segregating an employee from the public (or other employees) as a reasonable accommodation to his or her religious dress or grooming.

For religious matters, employers have historically had the ability to assert that some accommodations could not be made as they were an undue burden.  That somewhat vague standard has been refined so that it is similar to the “undue burden” standard that guides us in disability accommodation:  to claim that an accommodation would be an undue burden, an employer must demonstrate significant difficulty or expense.

Personnel Files.  Employers must review their personnel file maintenance and inspection procedures.  A new bill eliminates conflicting interpretations of the rules regarding current and former employees’ rights to inspect and copy their files.  The bill also places additional administrative requirements on employers.

I’ll talk about the other new laws in later posts so you can be ready for the New Year.  First, though, I’m going to pick out my Halloween costume.