Whole Foods Can't Erase NLRB Ruling Against Workplace Recording Policy
The federal labor board said in its ruling against Whole Foods that the agency does not have power to "modify an order that has been enforced by a court of appeals." Last year, Whole Foods lost its challenge in the Second Circuit.
May 02, 2018 at 06:58 PM
4 minute read
A federal labor panel has refused to overturn an Obama-era ruling that said the Whole Foods employee handbook unlawfully imposed broad workplace restrictions against recording conversations and taking photos.
Whole Foods Market Group Inc., represented by the law firm Proskauer Rose, unsuccessfully challenged the board's 2015 order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A federal appeals panel last year upheld the National Labor Relations Board order against Whole Foods, saying that certain prohibitions on workplace recording without management approval could “chill” workers' labor rights.
The three-member board said in its order May 1 that the agency does not have power to “modify an order that has been enforced by a court of appeals.”
NLRB chairman John Ring and member William Emanuel recused without explanation in Monday's order. Their former law firms—Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Littler Mendelson—have provided legal services to Amazon.com Inc., the parent of Whole Foods. Ring's financial disclosure identified Amazon as one of his former clients.
Lawyers for Whole Foods in January asked the board to reconsider the 2015 decision. They pointed to an Republican-led NLRB decision last year overturning a sweeping ruling that governed handbook policies.
Proskauer Rose partner Kathleen McKenna, a lawyer for Whole Foods, did not immediately respond to request for comment Wednesday.
Republican board members Emanuel, Marvin Kaplan and Philip Miscimarra in December voted to overturn the employee handbook standard the agency set in the 2004 case Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia. That case set out a test for judging whether workplace handbook policies interfered with employees' labor rights.
The Lutheran decision said a policy would violate the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, if workers “reasonably construed” the directives as limiting their right to engage in protected concerted activity, even if that is not the intent of the policy. The Republican board's decision in December, in a case against The Boeing Co., specifically cited Miscimarra's dissent in the Whole Foods recording policy dispute.
The President Donald Trump board's new standard requires the agency to evaluate “the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights” and “legitimate justifications associated with the rule.” The board said its Boeing analysis would apply retroactively to all pending cases.
Lawyers for Whole Foods argued the board does have the power to modify post-court enforced orders. The attorneys also said making changes to the employee rules would pose a “monumental administrative and operational challenge.” Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods has 88,000 employers in 450 stores.
“Whole Foods has extremely strong arguments supporting the legitimate business purposes behind maintaining the rules at issue in this case,” the Proskauer attorneys wrote in a recent brief. “Therefore, the company is extremely interested in maintaining these policies.”
The NLRB general counsel's office, in its brief, cited “long-standing board precedent” in arguing the board did not have authority to “rescind or substantively amend” an order that had been enforced by a federal appeals court.
The only pending matter, according to the NLRB general counsel, is “Whole Foods' compliance with the Second Circuit's order.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHospital Succeeds in Denying Vaccine Religious Accommodation Through 'Undue Hardship' Defense
NLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute read'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250