Modification To Overtime Pay Exemptions
April 18, 2016Vaidehi Hussain: Member Spotlight (June 2016)
June 5, 2016In March 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor released regulations significantly redefining employer-reporting obligations under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA and its reporting obligations apply regardless of whether an employer has unionized employees.
Under rules in place for decades, and based on the bedrock principle of the attorney-client privilege, employers have been free to seek legal assistance and consultation on labor and employment matters without fear of government intrusion into their private, confidential conversations. Instead, employers and consultants were only required to report when a consultant was engaged by an employer to speak directly with employees. The LMRDA specifically exempted the reporting of “advice” to employers by outside consultants, including lawyers.
If outside attorneys are required to file reports under the LMRDA, the following information must be disclosed:
- The identity of the consultant or law firm, and financial arrangements or fees charged in representing and advising employers on union-related communications with employees.
- If the lawyer or firm reports a single persuader activity, then the lawyer or firm must disclose the identity of and financial arrangements it has with all clients for all labor relations services-even those services unrelated to “persuader activity,” such as advice related to handbook reviews, supervisory training, arbitration, collective bargaining, and strike preparation.
The new persuader rule, which applies after June 30, 2016, dramatically expands when reporting will be required. The new rules require employers and their consultants to report not only when consultants directly seek to persuade workers, but also when consultants provide services in one of the following four categories:
- Plan, direct, or coordinate managers to persuade workers;
- Provide persuader materials to employers to disseminate to workers;
- Conduct union avoidance seminars; and
- Develop or implement personnel policies or actions to persuade workers.
The difficulty in determining whether reportable activity has occurred is perhaps best exemplified by the requirement to report when an attorney provides advice on the development or implementation of personnel policies or actions. In practice, every policy and procedure is arguably designed to ensure that employees are treated fairly and thereby reduces an employer’s vulnerability to union organizing. When is the reporting line crossed in this instance? If attorneys or employers “guess wrong,” the consequences are harsh-jail time and fines are possible consequences under the law.
You should know, a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Labor and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez to block what is believed to be the federal government’s illegal intrusion into private conversations regarding employment, labor and Human Resources matters between attorneys, consultants and employers. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding the new persuader rules or the reporting requirements, let us know at [email protected].
DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this feature is provided for informational purposes only. No part of any information contained herein should be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. The content of this Website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, opinions, decisions, verdicts or settlements. NAAAHR, and NAAAHR Atlanta expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this Website.