Tuesday, December 23, 2014

New Year, New Wage: Minimum Wage to Increase in Many States

By Sarah K. Ott*

On January 1, 2015, a number of states, including Ohio, will increase their minimum wage. In Ohio, the minimum wage will increase by fifteen cents per hour to $8.10 for non-tipped employees and $4.05 for tipped employees. Ohio’s law applies to employers with gross revenue of $297,000.00 and above. Ohio employers grossing less than $297,000.00 must only pay the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour to non-tipped employees and $2.13 per hour to tipped employees. Ohio employers must only pay minors aged fourteen and fifteen the federal minimum wage as well.

Some states are not waiting on the New Year to increases wages. California’s minimum wage increased to $9.00 per hour on July 1, 2014. In New York and West Virginia increases to minimum wage will be effective on December 31, 2014 ($8.75 per hour in New York and $8.00 per hour in West Virginia). Other states will see increases later in 2015. Delaware’s minimum wage will increase to $8.25 per hour on June 1, 2015, and the District of Columbia will see an increase to $10.50 per hour on July 1, 2015. Maryland will see two increases next year: to $8.00 per hour on January 1, 2015 and then to $8.25 per hour on July 1, 2015.

In recent years, cities have been enacting ordinances concerning minimum wage for workers in the city. On December 18, Louisville joined eleven other cities that increased minimum wage this year when the city council voted in favor of increasing the minimum wage for workers in the city from $7.25 to $9.00 by 2017.

The following table includes all increases to state minimum wages in 2015 (unless otherwise noted, all increases are effective January 1, 2015):

STATE
NON-TIPPED
TIPPED
Alaska
$8.75
$8.75
Arizona
$8.05
$5.05
Arkansas
$7.50
$2.63
Colorado
$8.23
$5.21
Connecticut
$9.15
$5.69
Delaware (effective 6/1/2015)
$8.25
$3.23
District of Columbia (effective 7/1/2015)
$10.50
$2.77
Florida
$8.05
$5.03
Hawaii
$7.75
$7.25
Maryland
$8.00
$3.63
Maryland (effective 7/1/2015)
$8.25
$3.63
Massachusetts
$9.00
$3.00
Minnesota (effective 8/1/2015)
$9.00 for larger employers;
$7.25 for smaller employers
$9.00 for larger employers; $7.25 for smaller employers
Missouri
$7.65
$3.83
Montana
$8.05
$8.05
Nebraska
$8.00
$2.13
New Jersey
$8.38
$2.13
New York (effective 12/31/2014)
$8.38
$5.oo for food service employees; $5.65 for other service employees; and $4.90 for resort hotel employees
Ohio
$8.10
$4.05
Oregon
$9.25
$9.25
Rhode Island
$9.00
$2.89
South Dakota
$8.50
$4.25
Vermont
$9.15
$4.58
Washington
$9.47
$9.47
West Virginia (effective 12/31/2014)
$8.00
$2.40


*Sarah K. Ott practices in all areas of labor and employment law. For more information about minimum wage and other wage and hour questions, please contact: Sarah K. Ott | sko@zrlaw.com | 216.696.4441

Monday, December 22, 2014

OSHA Announces New Reporting Requirements For Severe Injuries – Effective January 1, 2015

By Scott Coghlan*

As of January 1, 2015, employers must report to OSHA all work-related fatalities, in-patient hospitalizations and amputations, including the loss of an eye. Previously, employers were only required to report work-related fatalities and the hospitalization of three or more employees resulting from a single incident.

Under the new regulation, 29 C.F.R. 1904.39, employers must report to OSHA any work-related fatality within 8 hours of the death. This requirement applies to any fatality occurring within 30 days of the work-related incident attributed to the death.

Each in-patient hospitalization resulting from a work-related incident must be reported within 24 hours of the hospitalization. This requirement applies to all in-patient hospitalizations occurring within 24 hours of the precipitating work-related incident. “In-patient hospitalization” is defined as the formal admission to the in-patient service of a hospital or clinic for care or treatment. Excluded from the definition is hospitalization for observation and/or diagnostic testing.

Similarly, any amputation, including the loss of an eye, resulting from a work-related incident must be reported within 24 hours of the amputation. All amputations and eye losses must be reported if they occur within 24 hours of the work-related incident. “Amputation” is defined as the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part that has been severed, cut off or amputated (completely or partially). Fingertip amputations without bone loss, medical amputations made necessary due to irreparable damage and amputations that have since been reattached are included as reportable. Conversely, avulsions (forcible tearing away of a body part by trauma or surgery), enucleations (removal of the eye), deglovings (peeling away of soft tissue to expose bone), severed ears or broken/chipped teeth are excluded from the definition.

Employers can report the above matters to OSHA in three ways: (1) in person to the OSHA Area Office nearest to the site of the accident; (2) by telephone to the OSHA Area Office nearest to the site of the accident or the OSHA toll-free central telephone number, 1-800-321-OSHA (1-800-321-6742); or (3) by electronic submission using the fatality/injury/illness reporting application located at www.osha.gov.

*Scott Coghlan practices Workers’ Compensation Law. He has extensive experience counseling employers as to workplace safety and related issues. For more information about OSHA’s new reporting requirements or workers’ compensation law, please contact: Scott Coghlan | sc@zrlaw.com | 216.696.4441

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

DOWNES RANKED COLUMBUS TOP 50

Zashin & Rich is pleased to announce that Jonathan J. Downes of the firm's Labor & Employment Group has ranked in the COLUMBUS TOP 50 for the 2015 Ohio Super Lawyers.

Jonathan J. Downes has over 30 years of experience in practicing labor and employment law in Ohio and has successfully negotiated over 500 labor agreements and has presented over 100 impasse proceedings and 100 arbitrations. He represents cities, townships, counties, school districts, and public officials throughout the State of Ohio.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Super Lawyers Magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-accredited law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country.


About Zashin & Rich
With offices in Cleveland and Columbus Ohio, Z&R represents employers in all aspects of employment, labor, and workers' compensation law. The firm represents private and publicly traded companies as well as public sector employers throughout Ohio and the United States. Z&R defends employers in all aspects of private and public sector traditional labor law, employment litigation, and workers' compensation matters. The firm also counsels employers on a variety of daily workplace issues including, but not limited to, employee handbooks, non-compete agreements, social media, workplace injuries, investigations, disciplinary actions, and terminations.

Friday, December 12, 2014

What’s Theirs is Theirs and What’s Yours is Theirs – The NLRB Rules that Employees Have a Right to Use Employer Email Systems For “Non-Work” (Union Organizing)

By Patrick J. Hoban*

On December 11, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), by a 3-2 vote of its members, declared that employers who give employees access to employer email systems must permit those employees to use the employer’s email system for “statutorily protected communications” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) (i.e., union organizing, complaining about working conditions, criticizing supervisors) during nonworking time. Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (December 11, 2014)(“Purple Communications”).

In ruling that Section 7 includes the right for employees with access to employers’ email systems to use employer systems for “non-work” communications, the NLRB overruled the seven-year old precedent established by Register Guard, 351 NLRB 110 (2007). Under Register Guard, employers could lawfully prohibit employees from using employer email systems for non-work purposes; including activities protected by Section 7, without demonstrating a business justification, so long as the employer did not apply its ban discriminatorily (e.g., prohibit only union organizing communications). However, in Purple Communications, the NLRB stated that Register Guard was “clearly incorrect,” “failed to adequately protect employees’ rights,” and “abdicated [the Board’s] responsibility to adapt the Act to the changing patterns of industrial life.”

The NLRB’s decision in Purple Communications turned on its evaluation of employer-operated email systems as the standard method of workplace communication among employees. Based on this, the NLRB reaffirmed the central importance of employee communications workplace to the exercise of Section 7 rights. The NLRB then considered: the expanded use of email in the workplace; the fact that employers frequently allow employees personal use of employer email systems; and the percentage of employees who telework. The NLRB concluded that, in many workplaces, email has “effectively become a ‘natural gathering place’” for employees, just like a lunch room. Accordingly, the NLRB concluded that the Register Guard decision overvalued employer property rights to their email systems and undervalued work email as a means of employee communication under Section 7.

To accommodate its rejection of Register Guard, the NLRB established a new analytical framework to evaluate employee use of employer email systems. Under the NLRB’s new analysis, there is now a legal presumption that employees (who have access to the employer’s email system for work purposes) have a right to use employer email systems for non-work purposes, including Section 7-protected communications, during non-working time. An employer may rebut this presumption only by demonstrating that special circumstances exist which justify restricting the employees’ rights to use employer email. However, any employer-asserted harmful consequences of email use restrictions must be actual, not speculative. Additionally, the NLRB cautioned that such circumstances will rarely justify total bans on employee non-work use of employer email.

The NLRB further stated that its decision only applies to employee use of employer email systems and not to non-employees’ use of employer email systems (e.g., use by non-employee union organizers). Additionally, the NLRB clarified that employers are not required to grant employees use of email systems if they do not already do so. Employers may also: continue to enforce justifiable restrictions on email use (e.g., prohibiting large attachments or audio/video segments); continue to monitor their computer systems for legitimate managerial reasons (e.g., prevention of email use for harassment); and notify employees they have no expectation of privacy when using employer email systems.

This new Purple Communications will take effect immediately – and will be applied to all pending NLRB cases. According to the Board, applying the new standard only prospectively would “continue a fair-reaching, wrongful denial of [employees’ Section 7] rights.” The NLRB also justified immediate application of the new standard by relying on an employer’s ability to present evidence of special circumstances that justify restrictions imposed on employees’ use of employer email systems.

Although many commenters believe the Purple Communications will be appealed to a federal circuit court, subject to further review, the decision has far-reaching implications. Employers must now rethink and potentially retool their employee email use policies. Most obviously, employers who grant employee access to their email systems for work purposes can no longer prohibit them from using email for non-work purposes during non-working time. The decision also leaves unanswered questions regarding employer monitoring of employee emails involving Section 7 activity under the NLRB’s unlawful surveillance and retaliation standards. Additionally, employers faced with employee emails criticizing terms and conditions of employment, supervisors, and/or management must carefully consider whether such communications are protected prior to disciplining or counseling employees. Yet, as a potential benefit to employers, if employees chose to engage in union organizing through employer email, employers may be able to take appropriate, lawful actions to educate their employees concerning the many negative consequences of union organization prior to the filing of a representation petition.

In the end, Purple Communications creates a new Section 7 right for employees to use employer email systems for protected concerted activity during non-working time. Employers should review their current email use polices in light of this decision and consider how to best adjust them to maintain effective and efficient operations while complying with the law. Zashin & Rich will provide additional updates on this issue and will assist employers seeking compliance with this new standard.

*Patrick J. Hoban, an OSBA Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law, practices in all areas of private and public sector labor relations. For more information about the Purple Communications decision or labor & employment law, please contact Pat | pjh@zrlaw.com | 216.696.4441

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Search & Employ: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Employees Not Entitled to Pay for Post-Shift Security Searches

By Michele L. Jakubs*

In the unanimous decision issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time employees spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8293 (Dec. 9, 2014). This decision reaffirms that not all work-related activities are compensable.

Under the FLSA, employers must pay non-exempt employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours in a workweek and overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. The Portal-to-Portal Act exempts employers from liability under the FLSA with respect to certain categories of work-related activities. Under the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers need not compensate employees for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the employees’ principal work activities. Courts interpret the Portal-to-Portal Act to require compensation for preliminary or postliminary activities that are “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ principal work activities. For example, the time battery-plant employees spend showering and changing clothes because of exposure to toxic chemicals and the time meatpacker employees spend sharpening their knives is compensable because without these steps, the employees cannot safely or effectively perform their principal job activities.

The employees in Integrity Staffing claimed that under the FLSA they were entitled to pay for time spent waiting in line and going through employer-mandated security searches at the end of their shifts. The employees, whose duties included retrieving and packaging products for shipment to Amazon customers, argued that the employer conducted security searches to prevent employee theft and that the searches were solely for the benefit of the employer and its customers. The employees also argued that the time was compensable because the employer could have minimized the time associated with the security searches by adding more screeners and staggering the end of shifts.

The case came before the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed with the employees that the time was compensable. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that the employer required the employees to perform the activity at issue. The Supreme Court rejected this analysis as it extended coverage to activities that Congress clearly meant to exclude from compensation under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Supreme Court also noted that an analysis focused on whether the activity is for the employer’s benefit is similarly overbroad.

In finding the security search time not compensable, the Supreme Court stated that the screenings were not the employees’ principal work activities (i.e., retrieving and packaging products) and were not integral and indispensable to their principal activities. The Supreme Court highlighted that the employer employed the employees to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package those products for shipment. The employer did not employ its employees to undergo security screenings. In addition, the screenings were not an intrinsic element of the employees’ job. The employer could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work. Therefore, the employer was not required to compensate employees for this time under the Portal-to-Portal Act. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the employees’ argument related to the employer’s alleged failure to minimize the security search time, stating that such issues are suited for the bargaining table and not an FLSA lawsuit.

The Integrity Staffing decision highlights the potentially complicated analysis employers must conduct when determining whether or not to compensate employees for time spent performing work-related activities. Employers should seek legal advice in making these determinations as they could lead to liability under the FLSA and similar state laws.

Michele L. Jakubs, an OSBA Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law, practices in all areas of labor and employment law. For more information on the FLSA’s wage and hour requirements, the Portal-to-Portal Act, or the Integrity Staffing decision please contact Michele | mlj@zrlaw.com | 216.696.4441