Results for: National Labor Relations Board

The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) has condemned President Biden’s veto of legislation aimed at reversing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) controversial joint-employer standard. This rule, finalized in 2023, grants the NLRB broader authority to determine joint employer status, potentially leading to increased unionization and minimizing opportunities for franchisees. AHLA’s Interim President & CEO Kevin Carey expressed disappointment, highlighting the concerns of over 30,000 members and challenges in Congress. Despite the veto, a federal court has already blocked the rule’s implementation following a lawsuit filed by AHLA and other business groups.

After two years of negotiations, podcast workers at iHeartMedia have filed an unfair practice charge against management. The charge alleges that the company has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by restricting protected speech, engaging in intimidating conduct, and interrogating employees about their support for the union. The union, affiliated with the East, represents around 100 producers, editors, researchers, and hosts who work on titles including “Stuff You Should Know,” “My Favorite Murder,” and “The Ron Burgundy Podcast.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving Starbucks and its alleged unfair labor practices toward seven employees who were fired during a unionization effort. The justices considered whether to apply a more stringent test when evaluating requests for injunctions to reinstate employees while the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigates complaints. Lower courts have used different legal standards, and Starbucks argued for a stricter approach. Conservative justices appeared receptive to Starbucks’ position, while liberal justices expressed some concerns about granting the NLRB more deference.

Starbucks is challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s authority to seek court orders requiring companies to rehire fired union organizers. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. If Starbucks prevails, it could make it more difficult for the NLRB to intervene in cases of alleged corporate interference in unionization efforts. Despite the ongoing legal battle, tensions between Starbucks and Workers United, the union organizing its workers, have eased. The two sides are scheduled to meet for bargaining sessions this week.

In a case before the Supreme Court, Starbucks is seeking to limit the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in cases involving alleged employer interference in unionization efforts. The case stems from the firing of seven workers in a Tennessee Starbucks store who were attempting to organize a union. The NLRB intervened and obtained a court order requiring Starbucks to rehire the workers. Starbucks argues that the current standard for granting temporary injunctions against companies in such cases is inconsistent across federal appeals courts and can impose an undue burden on businesses. The NLRB maintains that existing standards provide appropriate scrutiny of its requests, emphasizing the rarity of its use of temporary injunctions.

In a pivotal case before the Supreme Court, Starbucks is challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) authority to issue temporary injunctions against companies accused of interfering with unionization efforts. The case stems from the firing of seven Starbucks employees in Memphis, Tennessee, who were leading a unionization effort. The NLRB determined that the firings constituted an illegal interference with workers’ right to organize and requested a temporary injunction requiring Starbucks to rehire the workers. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, but Starbucks appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that federal appeals courts don’t agree on the standards the NLRB must meet when requesting temporary injunctions.

Starbucks Corporation is appealing to the Supreme Court in a case involving the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the rights of workers to organize. The case stems from the firing of seven employees who were leading a unionization effort at a Starbucks store in Memphis, Tennessee. The NLRB determined that the firings constituted illegal interference with workers’ rights and obtained a court order requiring Starbucks to rehire them. Starbucks argues that the NLRB’s authority to seek such injunctions is too broad and seeks a narrower standard.