Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog : Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : McNees Wallace & Nurick Law Firm : Human Resources, Workplace and Business Law : Harrisburg, Lancaster, Allentown, Lehigh

This post was contributed by Adam R. Long, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Group.

Act 6 of 2011, which was signed into law on June 17, 2011, amended the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law in a number of ways. These changes include for the first time a severance pay offset against unemployment compensation benefits. Under the new law, "severance pay" is defined as:

one or more payments made by an employer to an employe on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments. The term does not include payments for pension, retirement or accrued leave or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.

The offset is calculated by subtracting 40 percent of the "average annual wage" under the Unemployment Compensation Law from the total severance amount. Currently, this "40% of the average annual wage" calculation equals $17,853, which means that claimants can receive up to $17,853 in total severance pay before their unemployment compensation benefits are affected. The amount of the severance attributed as an offset in any given week will equal the claimant's full-time daily or weekly wage, and the offset begins with the first week immediately following the claimant's separation from employment.

The effective date of the Act's severance pay provision is January 1, 2012. Severance agreements reached between an employer and employee in 2011 should not impact the employee's unemployment compensation benefits, even if the severance pay continues into 2012. The Act states that its severance pay provisions apply to benefit years that begin on or after the effective date, but will not "apply to severance pay agreements that were agreed to by an employer and employee prior to the effective date."

As we approach 2012, employers and employees should be aware of these new severance pay offset rules and their impact on unemployment compensation benefits when considering severance arrangements.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Bruce D. Bagley, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Group, and Adam L. Santucci, Esq., an Associate in the Group.

On June 22, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if finalized, would significantly change the union representation election process. According to a Board "Fact Sheet," the changes are designed to "reduce unnecessary litigation, streamline pre- and post-election procedures and facilitate the use of electronic communication and document filing." But the lone Republican Board Member, Brian E. Hayes, in a stinging dissent, seems to have more accurately characterized the proposed rule change as an "administrative fiat" which will "impose organized labor's much sought-after 'quickie election' option, a procedure under which elections will be held in 10 to 21 days from the filing of the petition." Hayes further described the proposal as an effort "to eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining."

The time between the date the petition is filed and the date of the election is critical for employers, because it is often the only time the employer will have to express its views regarding unionization. Often an organizing effort may have been ongoing for weeks or months without the employer's knowledge, and the employer only learns of the campaign when the election petition is filed with the Board. This means that the employees are only getting one side of the story, the union's side, prior to the filing of the petition. A shorter time between the filing of the petition and the election date will deprive employers of the time necessary to fairly present both sides of the representation question to employees.

Currently, the Board's operational goal is 42 days between the filing of the petition and the election, with the median time actually being only 38 days. Under the proposed rules, this time would be shortened significantly. The changes would require a pre-election hearing within seven (7) days of the filing of the petition and would defer rulings on any election issues until after the election, unless the issues would impact at least 20 percent of eligible voters. After an election has been directed, the employer would have only two (2) days to produce a list of eligible voters (not the current seven (7) days), which must include the names, home addresses, phone numbers, and if available, email addresses of these individuals. Currently, only names and addresses are required. In addition, the Board would have discretion to decline to review Regional Director rulings on post-election challenges.

These proposed rule changes, which also include the implementation of electronic filing of petitions, may not be quite as drastic as the changes that would have been wrought by the failed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Nonetheless, the proposed changes have been highly applauded by unions (which are already winning NLRB elections - 69% of elections held in 2009 and 68% of elections held in 2010). EFCA would have eliminated secret ballot elections, required arbitration over the terms of a first collective bargaining agreement if the parties were unable to reach agreement, and increased penalties for employers that engaged in unfair labor practices. EFCA has stalled since the November 2008 elections, and it seems that the Board's real motivation in proposing the election changes is to enable organized labor to increase its representation in the private sector workforce, where only 7% of employees are currently unionized.

In other recent developments, the activist Obama Board has also filed a lawsuit against Boeing Co., over Boeing's decision to perform manufacturing work at a non-union facility in South Carolina. The Board has also been highly active in protecting and advocating the use of social media for employees and unions. And, in December 2010, the Board announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require virtually all private sector employers to post a notice to employees regarding their rights to organize under the National Labor Relations Act. In addition, the Department of Labor has announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require further disclosure of employer use of consultants during union organizing campaigns, in an obvious effort to discourage the use of such consultants.

These developments send a loud and clear message that the current administration emphatically supports union organizing efforts. Employers must be aware that if the Board's proposed rules become final, employers will be significantly restricted in their ability to respond to union organizing campaigns. Therefore, employers must become more proactive than ever in addressing employee relations issues now and conducting union avoidance training for their supervisors and managers.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Brett E. Younkin, Esq., an Associate and a member of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio. On May 17, 2011, Brett reported that the United States Supreme Court was considering an important decision regarding class action suits.

UPDATE:

You may have heard the cheers emanating from Bentonville, Arkansas (the location of Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters), and the corporate headquarters of other large employers following the United States Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes, __U.S. ___ (2011) (PDF). On June 20, 2011, the Court decertified the class-action status of the 1.6 million current and former female employees in their decade-old suit against the world’s largest private employer. Betty Dukes and her two co-plaintiffs had alleged a nationwide pattern of discriminatory pay and promotion practices by the company, despite its published policy of non-discrimination. However, the Court unanimously disagreed and overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the case to proceed as a class action. The decision created what may be viewed as a higher burden of proof for establishing class action status.

While the Court was unanimous in deciding that this particular class should be decertified, only five of the justices joined in the entire ruling. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court found that commonality was the key to certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 – “claims must depend on a common contention . . . which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” To attempt to resolve “literally millions of employment decisions at once” would not result in a unified answer for why a particular employee was disfavored. “Without some glue holding together the alleged reason for those [discriminatory] decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.” The Court noted that the dissent from the lower court was correct in that the plaintiffs had “little in common but their sex and this lawsuit.”

Additionally, the opinion strongly rejected the plaintiffs' expert witness testimony because, among other things, a litany of the expert’s peers had denounced his approach, analysis, and conclusions. The Court also concluded that while anecdotal evidence may be relevant, a hundred stories out of millions of employment decisions throughout 3,400 stores did not prove a pattern of discrimination.

What does this decision mean for employers? It certainly will have an impact in the litigation context if an employer finds itself in the unfortunate position of facing a class action lawsuit. In addition, the Court's decision affirmed the use of anecdotes as evidence of discrimination and, therefore, inappropriate comments made by corporate leaders may be used as evidence of a corporate-wide discriminatory practice. As a result, employers are well advised to include corporate executives in refresher training regarding discrimination and harassment.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

A few months back, we reported that the National Labor Relations Board (Board) had issued a complaint against a company for disciplining an employee because she posted insulting remarks about her supervisor on her Facebook page. We subsequently reported that the complaint was settled. Since that time, the Board has remained very active in the the social media area, and has demonstrated an apparent desire to actively police that space.  The Board has issued several complaints, which send a strong message that the Board is interested in protecting the social media space for employees.

Before we move forward to discuss the Board's activity, lets first take a step back and remember that the rules of the game have not changed too much. The only difference is, the game is being played in a new arena. Since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), employees have had the right to engage in concerted activity and to discuss the terms and conditions of employment without retribution from their employers. The right to discuss the terms and conditions of employment, includes the right to discuss wages, benefits, working hours and working conditions, and under the Board's precedent, also includes the right to complain about supervisors and managers in some cases. The Act prohibits covered employers from disciplining employees who exercise these rights.

While these employee rights have not changed, they are now being exercised in a new forum. Employees, and unions, have flocked to social media. Unions are using social media to help organizing campaigns, and employees are using social media for just about everything. As a result, conversations that used to occur in the break room and bar room now take place on Facebook or via Twitter. In the past, employers were probably not even aware that employees were discussing the terms and conditions of employment, but now these conversations on posted on the Internet, and in some cases, have a very wide audience.

When these discussions are offensive or disparaging, employers often want to take action. Understandably, employers may wish to discipline employees whose comments demonstrate a lack of professionalism or violate employer policies. However, the Board has been quick to step in and issue a complaint if, in the opinion of the Board, the employer's action has violated the Act.

The Board has issued complaints involving Facebook and Twitter, complaints involving negative comments about individual supervisors and the employer as a whole, and complaints against both union and non-union employers. As the Board's first widely publicized social media complaint demonstrates, it does not matter what the forum is, employers cannot discipline an employee for discussing the terms and conditions of employment, and social media policies cannot prohibit employees from exercising their rights under the Act. The Board seems intent on protecting employee use of social media. Importantly, however, the Board's authority ends at the outer limits of the Act. Recently, the Board dismissed a complaint involving an employee termination because the employee's inappropriate tweets did not involve the terms and conditions of employment and therefore, were not "protected activity" under the Act.

The Board's activity highlights some key points. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Recently, Michael L. Hund, Esq. and Salvatore J. Bauccio, Esq. from McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Business Counseling Group developed a White Paper entitled: Equity Incentive Plans: Compensating Key Employees with Equity, Options and Equity Appreciation Awards (PDF). The White Paper provides an excellent summary of different methods that organizations can use to compensate and reward key employees. To view the White Paper click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Charles T. Young, Jr., Esq., Of Counsel and a member of the Litigation and Insurance Litigation and Counseling Practice Groups

The continuing rise in the cost of health care is increasing the level of scrutiny and risk associated with employer health plans. The financial stresses associated with skyrocketing costs have manifested themselves in a number of different ways. For instance, employers with "insured plans" may find that their insurers are now more likely to perform "coverage audits" to ensure that only eligible employees and dependents are participating in the plan. 

Common audit issues involve former employees and employees on extended leaves of absence who have been permitted to retain coverage beyond their last day of active employment. Employers are well-advised to consult with their carriers to ensure that there is no disagreement as to whether coverage may be extended in these situations, and for how long.

Another common audit issue involves the eligibility of dependents. Does the carrier's definition of the term "spouse" comport with the definition that the employer uses during open enrollment? Audits also commonly find dependent children who are inadvertently permitted to remain on a plan after surpassing the maximum age limit. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), otherwise known as healthcare reform, most dependents are now entitled to coverage until age 26. This recent statutory expansion of coverage will likely generate a surge in dependent-related coverage audit issues.

Self-insured employers may similarly find that major claims are subject to much greater scrutiny from reinsurers, or stop loss carriers. Common questions raised during claims reviews include: Was the employee properly covered under the plan at the time the claim was incurred? Do all covered spouses and dependents qualify for coverage under the definitions in the plan? Does the employer's Summary Plan Description accurately reflect all conditions or exclusions required? Has the employer or the employer's third party administrator failed to apply a plan exclusion to the claim? Self-insured employers should be mindful of these issues during day-to-day administration of their plans; otherwise, a reinsurer may decline coverage when it is needed most by a plan participant.

Disputes often arise when an employer extends coverage to an employee in an effort to avoid liability under employment laws. For example, employers covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") must provide eligible employees with 12 weeks of leave per year (26 weeks in cases involving certain military exigencies). During this leave, benefits must be provided if the employee continues to pay his or her share of the premium. Once FMLA leave is exhausted, an employer may decide to provide additional leave, with benefits, as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). An insurer or stop loss insurer, in contrast, may take the position that coverage should be terminated upon completion of the required FMLA leave and that any additional "supplemental" coverage should be treated as COBRA continuation coverage. This is yet another area where employers should have a clear understanding of their carrier's position. 

When an employer outsources its plan administration, another set of issues can arise. Many self-insured employers outsource the administration of their employee benefit plans to third party administrators ("TPA"). A TPA handles the paperwork associated with the plan, and administers the claims process, paying claims with company funds. As in any other industry, the performance and quality of TPAs varies. Some TPAs are excellent, and they timely communicate the information an employer needs to intelligently manage its claims. Unfortunately, some TPAs fail to communicate essential information to their client employers. They may fail to make wise decisions with respect to paying claims, fail to apply benefit exclusions or fail to comply with the sometimes burdensome requirements imposed by stop loss carriers providing coverage for catastrophic losses. With the rising costs of healthcare, a stop loss carrier may increasingly deny claims for reimbursement based on the conduct of an employer's TPA. At the same time, the employer may be increasingly reliant on the TPA because it lacks the personnel and/or commitment to actively monitor the claims made by its employees. 

Coverage disputes are expensive to defend and can quickly sour a relationship between an employer and employee. Under PPACA, claims appeals processes will be subject to external review and are likely to be more claimant-friendly. Limited proactive involvement by an employer in its benefit plan can go a long way toward preventing these costly and disruptive disputes. Employers are encouraged to conduct self-audits to identify potential issues and resolve them through discussion with their TPAs, insurers and reinsurers on a proactive basis. Plan documents should be reviewed by counsel to ensure clarity and compliance. In the realm of plan administration, the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" clearly applies.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link