November 22, 2016
One of the most controversial issues in employment law these days involves the position of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it requires employees to pursue any dispute they have with their employer on an individual, rather than on a class or collective action, basis with other employees. It is a position that has been adopted by two circuit courts and rejected by three—a conflict that suggests that the issue is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.
The NLRB has contended that when an employer requires employees to sign an agreement precluding them from bringing or joining a concerted legal claim regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, the employer deprives them of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the NLRA to engage in concerted activities for employees’ mutual aid or protection. That right, the proponents argue, includes the right to join together in class and collective litigation to pursue workplace grievances in court or in arbitration.
In making that argument, the NLRB appears to be neglecting the second part of Section 7 (added to the NLRA by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments), which guarantees to employees an equal right to refrain from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. It would seem to follow that, if they have the right to refrain from engaging in concerted activities, employees could waive their right to participate in class and collective actions.
November 21, 2016
The top story on Employment Law This Week: Election Day brings a wave of new laws affecting employers.
While all eyes were on the battle for the White House, voters in a number of states approved new legislation that will directly impact employers. Arizona and Washington will soon require paid sick leave for workers, as well as minimum wage increases. Medical marijuana is now legal in Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota, while recreational use was approved in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. The new laws in Arkansas and Maine explicitly prohibit employment discrimination against medical marijuana users.
November 16, 2016
Leading independent business law firm, Hall & Wilcox is pleased to have gained further recognition by recommendations in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2017 in six key practice areas.
The Legal 500 Asia Pacific provides a comprehensive listing of law firms and lawyers and insight into legal markets across the Asia Pacific. The rankings are based on a number of factors including the complexity of matters handled, size of the practice area, feedback received from clients and researcher interviews.
Hall & Wilcox has again been ranked in Banking and finance, Dispute resolution, Employment, Real estate and Restructuring and insolvency.
The firm has also been ranked in the Insurance category. This is the first time the firm has provided a submission for this area and has been supported by the national expansion of this area over the past two years.
As part of our rankings, 14 partners have also been recommended in the editorial.
November 15, 2016
The Full Court of the Federal Court has applied the reasoning of the High Court in Highway Hauliers regarding the operation of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.
Mr Phillips held two policies of insurance against damage to his luxury yacht – one with Pantaenius Australia Pty Ltd (Pantaenius) and one with Watkins. Both policies covered the yacht while it was within Australian waters, but the Watkins policy included a term suspending cover from when the yacht cleared Australian Customs (for the purpose of leaving Australian waters) until it cleared Australian Customs upon its return to Australian waters.
After returning from a race from Freemantle to Bali the yacht struck a reef north off of the Australian mainland near Cape Talbot (which is within Australian waters). It had not cleared Australian Customs upon re-entering Australian waters.
November 15, 2016
While the presidential election has attracted extreme attention, marijuana legalization initiatives were on the in nine states on November 8, 2016. Four states – Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota – approved measures providing for the medical use of marijuana, and three states – California, Massachusetts, and Nevada – approved initiatives allowing for recreational use. The results in Maine are still close to call, but, if that measure is approved, it will be the fourth measure permitting recreational use. Only one state (Arizona) defeated a marijuana legalization initiative.
The following chart summarizes the approved initiatives, including implications for employers:
November 14, 2016
Last week, leading lawyers, regulators and marketers attended the 38th Annual Brand Activation Association (BAA) Marketing Law Conference in Chicago. At BAA, I gave a presentation on the interplay of marketing and advertising law to activate brands. Over the next few days, I will share with you three posts from my presentation. Let’s dive into the first one…
Every day, in-house attorneys make risk decisions when advising clients. It would probably be helpful for them to know what is on the regulators’ minds. But how do they find out?
Think about the mindset of the regulators that may be scrutinizing your industry. Remember that Attorney Generals are political animals who will track publicity; that the “reasonable person” standard invoked by … Continue Reading
November 14, 2016
By Samantha Ip & Sean Tessarolo (respectively counsel and articled student for the corporate tenant at trial)
Many in Vancouver will remember when the Taco Del Mar restaurant on West Broadway exploded in the early morning hours of February 13, 2008. That explosion resulted in damage to the office building which contained the Taco Del Mar and to buildings across the street. Austeville Properties Ltd. v. Josan et al., 2016 BCSC 1963 is an action that arose out of the efforts of the landlord’s insurer to recover over $3 million paid out to the landlord for property damage repairs and business interruption losses arising from that explosion. The landlord’s insurer brought a subrogated action in the name of the plaintiff landlord against its corporate tenant and several other individuals including the only two directors of the corporate tenant, Mr. and Mrs. Nandha.
November 13, 2016
Russian courts to block LinkedIn over data protection rules breach