Category Archives: Montana

February 7, 2014

NLRB Again Proposes Rules to Speed Union Elections

By John M. Husband

After dropping its appeal of a District Court ruling that invalidated its “ambush election” rules, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has proposed those rules again.  By a vote of 3-2, the Board reissued proposed amendments to its representation case procedures.  The Board states that the amendments are designed to remove unnecessary delays and inefficiencies in representation case procedures.  The effect, however, is expected to be an increase in union wins as the union election procedures are streamlined and votes occur quicker. 

Board Lacked Quorum When Rules Adopted in 2011 

The NLRB first proposed its rules to speed up the union election process in June of 2011.  At the time, the Board had just three members as two positions were vacant.  Despite an outcry by the business community and receipt of almost 66,000 comments, two of the three Board members voted to adopt the rules.  The final rules were published in December of 2011 and went into effect on April 30, 2012. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other interested groups sought to stop the implementation of the ambush election rules by suing the NLRB in federal court in the District of Columbia.  Just two weeks after the rules went into effect, the judge in the case invalidated the rules, finding the Board lacked a three-member quorum needed to pass the rules.  Although two of the Board members voted in favor of the rules, the third Board member, the sole Republican, did not participate in the vote.  Finding that the rules were invalid for lack of the statutorily-mandated quorum, the judge did not need to address the challenge to the rules’ constitutionality and the lack of authority of the NLRB to adopt the rules.  In a distinct incident of foreshadowing of this week’s events, the judge specifically stated “nothing appears to prevent a properly constituted quorum of the Board from voting to adopt the rule if it has the desire to do so."  

The NLRB appealed the District Court’s decision, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the lower court’s ruling.  On December 9, 2013, the NLRB withdrew its appeal pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties.  It did so in anticipation of doing exactly what the District Court judge had suggested, namely proposing the rules again so that a properly constituted quorum of the Board can vote to adopt the rules.  Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Board members Kent Y. Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer approved the re-issuance of the proposed rules. 

“Ambush Election” Rules Would Speed Union Election Process 

Published in the February 6, 2014 Federal Register, the proposed changes are virtually identical to those proposed in 2011.  Highlights of the proposed amendments include: 

  • A union may file its representation petition electronically, rather than by hand or regular mail.
  • A hearing must be held within 7 days of the union filing its petition.
  • Employers must provide a comprehensive “statement of position” on the union’s representation petition in advance of the hearing; any issues not included in the statement are waived.
  • Pre-election hearing is to determine only whether a question concerning representation exists; issues related to individual voter eligibility may be deferred to post-election procedures.
  • The parties right to file a post-hearing brief is discretionary as allowed by the hearing officer.
  • Deadline for employer to provide voter eligibility list is shortened from 7 work days to 2 work days from the Direction of Election.
  • Employer must provide email addresses and telephone numbers for employees eligible to vote in addition to the required names and home addresses.
  • Election need not wait for 25 days after the issuance of a Direction of Election.
  • Pre-election appeals to the Board are eliminated, leaving only a discretionary appeal of both pre- and post-election issues after the election occurs. 

Two Board Members Dissented 

Board members Philip A. Miscimarra and Harry I. Johnson III are not in favor of the proposed rules.  Although stating that they share in the majority’s desire to protect and safeguard the rights and obligations of those subject to the National Labor Relations Act, they do not believe it necessary to adopt a “wholesale rewrite” of the Board’s election procedure. 

Interested parties and the public may submit comments on the proposed rules until April 7. Electronic comments may be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Comments may also be mailed or hand delivered to: Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570. The Board intends to hold a hearing on the amendments during the week of April 7.  We will keep you informed of developments on this issue.

 

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 27, 2014

Union Membership: By the Numbers – 2013

By Jeffrey T. Johnson (retired)

The results are in.  For 2013, the percentage of union members in the private sector ticked up slightly, to 6.7%.  The percentage for 2012 was 6.6%.  The total number of union members working in the private sector rose from 7.0 million in 2012 to 7.3 million in 2013.

Numbers for the public sector dipped slightly from 2012, with 35.9 percent of public sector employees reported to be union members in 2012 and 35.3 percent in 2013. The total number of public sector union members remained relatively flat, with 7.2 million union members in 2013, down just over 100,000 members from 2012.

In analyzing the data provided by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the trend in both percentage and total number of union members has been a steady downward one.  For example, in 2005, 7.8% of private sector employees were union members.  In 2005, 15.7 million workers (private and public) were union members; in 2013, only 14.5 million.

The BLS report breaks down the union membership data by many categories, including by state, gender, age, industry, and occupation.  It also provides comparative earnings information.  Here are some highlights:

  • Men had a higher union membership rate (11.9%) than women (10.5%).
  • The age category with the highest percentage of union members was age 55-64 (14.3%).
  • The occupations with the highest percentage of private sector union members were protective service occupations (35.3%), utilities (25.6%), and transportation and warehousing (19.6%)
  • New York continues to have the highest union membership rate (24.4%), while North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.0%).

Statistics for 2013 union membership in the primary states served by Holland & Hart’s offices were as follows:

  • Nevada – 14.6% unionized, total of 169,000 members
  • Montana – 13.0% unionized, total of 52,000 members
  • Colorado – 7.6% unionized, total of 171,000 members
  • New Mexico – 6.2% unionized, total of 751,000 members
  • Wyoming – 5.7% unionized, total of 15,000 members
  • Idaho – 4.7% unionized, total of 29,000 members
  • Utah – 3.9% unionized, total of 49,000 members

Note:  Above figures are private and public sectors combined

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

December 26, 2013

ERISA Plan’s Limitation Period Is Enforceable, Says U.S. Supreme Court

By Elizabeth Nedrow 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that provides some welcome guidance to insurers and employers sponsoring ERISA employee benefit plans.  The Court upheld a three-year limitations period in a long term disability plan.  The terms of the plan required participants to file a lawsuit to recover benefits within three years after “proof of loss.”  Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,No. 12-729, 571 U.S.  ___ (Dec. 16, 2013).  The Court ruled that because ERISA itself does not specify a limitations period, the plan’s three year deadline was reasonable and therefore enforceable.  

Benefit Plan Participant Filed Lawsuit After Benefits Were Denied 

Julie Heimeshoff, a senior public relations manager for Wal-Mart Stores, was a participant in a long term disability plan administered by Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company (Hartford).  In 2005, she filed a claim for disability benefits following a diagnosis of lupus and fibromyalgia.   On her claim form, her rheumatologist listed her symptoms as extreme fatigue, significant pain and difficulty in concentration.  Hartford denied her claim after her rheumatologist failed to respond to its requests for more information.  In 2006, Heimeshoff provided Hartford with an evaluation from another physician who also determined that she was disabled.  Hartford retained a physician to review Heimeshoff’s records who concluded that she was able to perform the activities of her sedentary job.  Hartford again denied her disability claim.  

After granting Heimeshoff an extension to the appeal deadline to provide additional evidence and retaining two additional physicians to review her claim, Hartford issued its final denial of benefits on November 26, 2007.  On November 18, 2010, Heimeshoff filed suit in district court seeking review of her denied claim under ERISA’s judicial review provision, known as ERISA Section 502.  Hartford and Wal-Mart asked the court to dismiss her suit because she did not file the case within the limitations period provided for in the plan, namely within three years after the time that written proof of loss is required to be furnished to Hartford.  The district court agreed that the lawsuit was untimely and dismissed her case.  On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed.  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeal on the enforceability of an ERISA plan’s contractual limitations period. 

ERISA Contractual Limitations Provisions Should Be Enforced As Written 

The long-term disability plan at issue stated that legal action against Hartford could not be taken more than three years after the time that written proof of loss is required to be furnished according to the terms of the policy.  Written proof of loss is necessarily due before Hartford and the participant complete the internal review process and before a plan participant is notified of a final denial of benefits which is necessary before filing a lawsuit in court.  The result of this contractual limitations period is that a participant has less than three years to file a lawsuit in court after learning that their benefit claim has been finally denied. 

In reviewing whether to enforce this limitations period, the Supreme Court relied on well-established precedent which states that in the absence of a limitations period provided by a controlling statute, a provision in a contract may validly limit the time for parties to bring an action on such contract to a period less than that prescribed in the general statute of limitations as long as the shorter period is reasonable.  The Court noted that ERISA does not specify a statute of limitations.  Consequently, the Court ruled that a participant and a plan may agree by contract to a particular limitations period as long as it is reasonable.  

Heimeshoff argued that the contractual limitations period at issue was not reasonable because it began to run before a claimant could exhaust the internal review process which is required before seeking judicial review.  The Court unanimously disagreed, concluding that the three-year limitations period from the date that proof of loss is due was not unreasonably short and therefore, was enforceable.  Although Hartford’s administrative review process took longer than usual, Heimeshoff still had approximately one year to file suit before the limitations period was up.  Because Heimeshoff filed her lawsuit more than three years after her proof of loss was due, as required contractually by the plan, her complaint was time barred.  Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of Heimeshoff’s suit. 

Significance for Employee Benefit Plans 

The Court’s decision is welcome news for insurers and employers who want efficient resolution of ERISA claims disputes.  Plan documentation should be reviewed, and where appropriate, language should be added or clarified to provide a reasonable limit on the time a participant has to bring a lawsuit to challenge a denied claim for benefits. 


Disclaimer: This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.


Print Friendly and PDF

July 29, 2013

The Battle Over Background Checks Continues — State AGs Accuse EEOC of “Gross Federal Overreach”

By Mark Wiletsky 

Is it discriminatory if an employer does not hire anyone with a particular criminal conviction, regardless of that person’s race, gender, religion, or other protected characteristic?  According to the EEOC’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance, it might be.  But in a July 24, 2013 letter sent to EEOC Commissioner Jacqueline Berrien and the four EEOC Board Members, nine state Attorneys’ General (AGs) disagree.  The AGs chastise the EEOC for filing recent lawsuits against BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC and Dolgencorp (Dollar General), in which the EEOC alleges that these employers violated Title VII’s disparate impact prohibition by using a bright-line screening policy that rejected all individuals with past convictions in certain categories of crimes, such as murder, assault, reckless driving and possession of drug paraphernalia.   

The letter then criticizes the EEOC’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance on Arrest and Conviction Records, stating that the EEOC’s policy guidance incorrectly applies the law and constitutes an unlawful expansion of Title VII.  The AGs argue that if Congress wishes to protect former criminals from employment discrimination, it can amend the law, but it is not the EEOC’s role to expand the protections of Title VII under the guise of preventing racial discrimination. 

The Republican state AGs from Colorado, Montana, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, West Virginia, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia joined in this missive to say “enough is enough” on the EEOC’s background check lawsuits.  Citing the burden on businesses to undertake more individualized assessments of an applicant’s criminal history, the AGs urge the EEOC to rescind its April 2012 Enforcement Guidance and dismiss the lawsuits against Dollar General and BMW.  Not likely, but it may get the attention of federal lawmakers who may try to rein in the EEOC’s position on this issue.


Disclaimer:This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.


Print Friendly and PDF