Another one of LinkedIn’s features is their “Answers” section. This is a place where you can share business knowledge with others on LinkedIn – you can ask your question to get fast, accurate answers from your network and other experts, showcase your knowledge by answering questions, and stay up on the latest information in your industry.
Monthly Archives: August 2011
As if there weren’t already enough postings required for workplaces, the NLRB has now joined the party. On August 25, 2011, the NLRB issued a final rule that requires employers to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Employers have until November 14, 2011 to post the required notice.
Who Must Post What?
The rule applies to the majority of employers covered by the Act, regardless of whether the employer has any union employees. As the NLRB noted previously, the rule is designed to capture the “great majority” of small businesses in the United States.
Louboutin sees red: signature red sole shoes not protected against copyright and trade mark infringement
By Alexia Marinos of Gadens Lawyers, Sydney
Nowadays, it seems common to see women of all ages strutting around the city with red soled shoes. For some people, seeing red soled shoes means nothing. However, the fashion savvy will be quick to recognise that the owner has probably paid a small fortune for their shoes, produced by exclusive French designer, Christian Louboutin. read more…
Progress towards e-conveyancing
By Chris Fabiansson of Gadens Lawyers, Sydney
Labor and Employment Alert: NLRB Issues Final Rule Requiring Employers To Post Notice of Employees’ Rights
NLRB issues final rule requiring employers to post notice of employees’ rights
On August 25, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a final rule (the “Final Rule”), which requires employers to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). This Final Rule was designed to close a so-called “knowledge gap” in the workforce. The Final Rule contains minor changes from the Board’s Proposed Rule on this topic.
Click here to view our previous Alert regarding the Proposed Rule, “Ready or not, here they come – NLRB issues new Proposed Rule to revamp the union election process.” The Final Rule is expected to take effect on November 14, 2011.
Who must post?
On August 27, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) adopted a rule, which becomes effective as of November 14, 2011, that requires employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NRLA”). This Notice requirement applies to millions of private-sector employers that fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRA. The Notice is to inform both unionized and non-unionized employees of their rights under the NLRA and, specifically, provides that employees have the right to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join and assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employer, and to refrain from any of these activities. The Notice also provides examples of unlawful employer and union conduct and instructs employees on how to contact the NLRB with questions or complaints.
In a case of first impression, the Northern District of Illinois recently held in Bell v. Village of Streamwood (Case No. 10 C 3263) that an employee-union representative privilege exists as a matter of federal common law. In so holding, the Court reasoned that a union representative’s role is not unlike that of an attorney, and that there is a strong interest in encouraging an employee accused of wrongdoing to communicate fully and frankly with his or her union representative. Therefore, the Court held that the employee-union representative privilege would extend to communications made: (1) in confidence; (2) in connection with “representative” services relating to anticipated or ongoing disciplinary proceedings; (3) between an employee and his or her union representative; (4) where the union representative is acting in his or her official representative capacity. Moreover, similar to the attorney-client privilege, the employee-union representative privilege is somewhat limited in that it only extends to the communications, not to the underlying facts and issues.