Labor & Employment Law Blog

As we previously reported here, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued on May 18, 2011, a press release announcing the NLRB issued a complaint against a non-profit employer for allegedly violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating five employees who posted on a co-worker's Facebook page comments critical of their working conditions. According to the NLRB's press release," The complaint alleges that the Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels."

As many of our readers know, the California Court of Appeals decided in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court that an employer's obligation to "provide" to non-exempt employees meal periods required by the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders is to make those meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take the meal periods provided to them.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)  issued today a press release announcing the NLRB issued a complaint against a non-profit employer for allegedly violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating five employees who posted on a co-worker's Facebook page comments critical of their working conditions. According to the NLRB's press release,"The complaint alleges that the Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels." Click here to download and read the press release. 

As we previously reported here, on February 7, 2011, in Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., the California Court of Appeal upheld California’s “explicit mutual wage agreement” doctrine. “Under that doctrine,” said the court, “an employer and [non-exempt] employee may lawfully agree to a guaranteed fixed salary so long as the employer pays the employee for all overtime at least one and one-half times the employee’s basic rate” so long as the employer and the employee enter into an agreement specifying: (1) the days the employee will work each workweek, (2) the number of hours the employee will work each workday, (3) the specific amount of the salary the employee is guaranteed to be paid, (4) the employee is informed and agrees to the basic hourly rate of pay upon which the salary will be based, (5) the employee is informed and agrees the agreed-upon salary covers the employees straight-time hours and overtime hours, and (6) the agreement is reached before the work is performed. 

The United States Department of Labor ("DOL") recently announced the release of a free smart phone application available in English and Spanish that will enable employees to "independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed." According to the DOL, "users conveniently can track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers." The DOL goes on to ...

As we previously reported here, in Drake Price v. Starbucks Corporation, the Court of Appeal held, among other things, that a plaintiff does not state a viable claim for Labor Code Section 226.7 penalties merely because a wage statement does not contain all of the required information. 

In a memo dated May 3, 2011, it was announced that the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") would begin a new collaborative effort with the University of California at Irvine Law School to combat allegations of systemic discrimination. DFEH and UC Irvine have established a clinic in which law students will assist DFEH agents on tasks which include evaluation, investigation, and ...

As we previously reported here, a report issued by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, shows that employment cases were the most frequently filed class actions, representing 29.3% of the class actions filed, and that over half of the employment cases filed alleged violations of Labor Code provisions governing payment of wages, rest and meal periods, and related claims. This is consistent with our experience representing numerous employers against such class action lawsuits.