AGC's Human Resource and Labor News - May 22, 2012 / Issue No. 3-12 (Print All Articles)

Back to Graphical Version | Search back issues


NLRB’s “Quickie Election” Rule Deemed Invalid for Lack of Quorum

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) new rule revising election procedures in union representation cases is invalid, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled May 14.  The rule, often called the “quickie election” or “ambush election” rule because it expedites the election process to unions’ advantage, took effect on April 30.  The Board has suspended implementation of the rule and is expected to revert back to procedures in effect before April 30. 

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) new rule revising election procedures in union representation cases is invalid, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled May 14.  The rule, often called the “quickie election” or “ambush election” rule because it expedites the election process to unions’ advantage, took effect on April 30.  The Board has suspended implementation of the rule and is expected to revert back to procedures in effect before April 30.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), both of which AGC is a member, brought the lawsuit challenging the rule on several procedural and substantive counts.  The court ruled on only one of those counts, finding that the Board lacked the necessary quorum when it voted to adopt the final rule.  At the time, in December 2011, three members sat on the five-member Board:  Chairman Mark Pearce (D), Craig Becker (D), and Brian Hayes (R).  All three participated in earlier stages of the rulemaking process, including a Nov. 30 vote on a resolution to adopt a final rule addressing certain aspects of the proposed rule that did not specify the exact language of the final rule.  The vote was two to one, with Hayes voting against proceeding with the rule.  After, drafts of the rule were circulated to all Board members.  On Dec. 14, all three members voted on a procedural order related to publication of the rule, again with Hayes being the sole dissent.  A final draft of the rule was circulated on Dec. 16.  Pearce and Becker voted to adopt the rule.  Hayes did not vote and was not asked to record a final vote.  He later stated that he did not think that any further action was required of him.  Apparently, neither did Pearce, as the final draft was submitted for publication in the Federal Register as a final rule that same day, with the preamble noting that Hayes had “effectively indicated his opposition” in the Nov. 30 and Dec. 14 votes.

The National Labor Relations Act provides that three members of the Board constitutes a quorum, and it was undisputed in the case that this quorum requirement applies to rulemaking.  The issue was whether Hayes should be counted toward establishing the quorum here.  The NLRB claimed that Hayes should be counted because of his participation in the Nov. 30 and Dec. 14 votes and because he was sufficiently “present” for the Dec. 16 final vote.  The court disagreed, stating:

The Dec. 16 decision to adopt the final rule, not the earlier votes, was the relevant agency action.  A quorum, accordingly, must have participated in that decision.  And although Hayes need not have voted in order to be counted toward the quorum, he may not be counted merely because he was a member of the Board at the time the rule was adopted.  More was required.

The court discussed what level of “participation” – short of voting – is required to be counted in a quorum.  Had Hayes “affirmatively expressed his intent to abstain or even acknowledged receipt of the notification,” or had “someone reached out to him to ask for a response…or had a substantial amount of time passed following the rule’s circulation,” it might have been sufficient.  “But none of that happened here,” stated the court.  Nor does it matter that Hayes issued a dissenting statement months later.

The court emphasized that its decision “need not necessarily spell the end of the final rule for all time.”  The court did not address the plaintiffs’ other procedural and substantive challenges to the rule, and explicitly commented that, had there been a proper quorum, the final rule might have been found to be lawful.  The court also acknowledged that a properly constituted quorum of the Board could vote now to adopt the rule.

It remains to be seen whether the Board – which presently has five members (three democrats and two republicans) – will indeed hold a new vote on the rule.  However, this would likely spur new legal challenges, since the recess appointments of three current members are arguably invalid and already being challenged in separate litigation.  It also remains to be seen whether the Board will appeal the present decision.  Such an appeal seems likely, particularly given a recent statement by Pearce that the agency is “determined to move forward” in its efforts to revise representation-case procedures.  As the court noted, “In the meantime, though, representation elections will have to continue under the old procedures.”

This case represents a significant victory for AGC-supported CDW and is the second big victory against the NLRB in a month.  CDW and co-plaintiffs persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an order on April 18 enjoining a rule issued by the Board to require employers to post certain notices of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

For more information, please contact Denise Gold at (703) 837-5326 or goldd@agc.org


NLRB Posting Rule on Hold

A regulation issued by the National Labor Relations Board requiring most private-sector employers to post certain notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) will not go into effect as scheduled on April 30.

A regulation issued by the National Labor Relations Board requiring most private-sector employers to post certain notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) will not go into effect as scheduled on April 30.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 17 issued an injunction putting the rule on hold until the court has fully considered the merits of a legal challenge brought by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (“CDW”), of which AGC is a member, and its co-plaintiffs.  With oral argument not set until September, this means that the regulation will not go into effect – and employers need not comply with it – until fall at the very earliest, if at all.  The rule could become permanently invalidated by the court or rescinded by the Board later. 

CDW and its co-plaintiffs requested the injunction from the appeals court after the district court in DC upheld the posting mandate provisions of the regulation and invalidated the penalty provisions on March 2.  In a separate challenge brought by the U.S. and South Carolina Chambers of Commerce, a federal district court in South Carolina issued an inconsistent opinion on April 13, finding that the Board exceeded its authority under the NLRA and invalidating the rule in its entirety.

The Board has issued a statement confirming that its regional offices will not implement the rule pending the resolution of the issues in court.  The statement also expressed the agency’s current intent to continue to defend its actions and otherwise litigate the matter.

These cases and the Board’s regulation should not be confused with similar but separate regulations by the Department of Labor and FAR Council effectively requiring federal contractors to post a similar notice of employee rights under the NLRA.  That rule remains in effect.


EEOC Issues Enforcement Guidance on Criminal Background Investigations

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Effective immediately, the guidance updates, consolidates, and supersedes the Commission’s 1987 and 1990 policy statements on this issue.  It is also designed to be a resource for employers, employment agencies, and unions covered by Title VII; for applicants and employees; and for EEOC enforcement staff.

The guidance does not prohibit employers from obtaining and using criminal background reports about job applicants and employees.  It does, however, require employers to prove that the use of such reports is “job related and consistent with business necessity.”

More information, including questions and answers about the guidance, is available at www.eeoc.gov.


Construction Owner Unlawfully Ousted Union Protesters from Common Areas Around Leased Stores

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision that a grocery chain using nonunion construction contractors unlawfully ejected building trade council representatives handing out handbills adjacent to properties leased by the chain.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has upheld a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision that a grocery chain using nonunion construction contractors unlawfully ejected building trade council representatives handing out handbills adjacent to properties leased by the chain.

The case involved peaceful handbilling by representatives of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council urging a consumer boycott of Roundy’s in front of 26 Roundy’s stores in the Milwaukee area.  The dispute concerned 23 of those stores, where Roundy’s leased the store and held only a nonexclusive easement over the common areas, including where the handbilling took place just outside its stores.  The union representatives did not engage in picketing and did not block access to or from the stores.  The handbills accused Roundy's of saving money by using cheap labor to build and remodel its stores without passing the savings on to customers, asked customers not to patronize the store, and pointed out savings that could be achieved by shopping at competitor stores.  Roundy’s ejected the handbillers, in some cases with the help of the police.  The NLRB found that Roundy’s actions violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) for discriminatorily prohibiting the union handbilling while permitting nonunion solicitations and distributions on the property.

In agreeing with the NLRB, the court noted that an employer has no right to exclude union representatives engaged in NLRA-protected activity from areas where it lacks an exclusionary property interest.  The court upheld the NLRB’s rule that the employer must meet a threshold burden of showing a sufficient property interest.  The question in this case was “whether Roundy's met its burden of showing, under Wisconsin law, that its nonexclusive easements gave it an exclusionary interest to oust the peaceful handbillers from the common areas.”

To answer that question, the court examined Wisconsin law and the terms of the easements set forth in Roundy’s leases.  It noted that Roundy’s interest in the common areas around its stores was limited to a maintenance obligation and a nonexclusive easement.  Also, although Roundy’s had a practice of ejecting “undesirables” from those areas, no lease explicitly authorized it to do so and there is no evidence that landlords were aware of the practice.  The court found that Roundy’s has rights to the extent of its nonexclusive use in the easements and can enjoin third parties when they “unreasonably interfere” with their intended use.  The ultimate question, said the court, is “whether the handbillers’ actions unreasonably  interfered” with the purpose of the easements, which the court found to be providing ingress and egress to its stores in a manner conducive to the commercial businesses that share the common areas.

The court found that Wisconsin law recognizes a distinction between a property owner’s and a nonexclusive easement owner’s right to exclude unwanted visitors from common areas, and that the NLRB properly applied Wisconsin law in concluding that the handbillers here did not unreasonably interfere with Roundy’s use of its easement.  The court expressly limited its holding to the facts that the handbillers were engaged in peaceful conduct protected by the NLRA and the absence of any evidence that they were disruptive or that “customers were inconvenienced or disconcerted by their presence.”

Given those findings, the court concluded that Roundy’s failed to meet its burden of proving a state property interest sufficient to remove the handbillers, and it granted enforcement of the NLRB’s decision.

Roundy’s, Inc. v. NLRB, Case Nos. 10-3921 and 11-1292 (7th Cir., 3/9/12).


Court Enforces Union Agreement to Indemnify Employer for Withdrawal Liability

 A collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) provision by which a union agrees to indemnify an employer for contingent liability to a multiemployer pension plan does not violate public policy and is enforceable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has held.  The issue was one of first impression for the court and apparently has been addressed by only one other federal circuit court to date, the Third Circuit (DE, NJ, PA, VI), which issued a similar opinion in 2009

A collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) provision by which a union agrees to indemnify an employer for contingent liability to a multiemployer pension plan does not violate public policy and is enforceable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has held.  The issue was one of first impression for the court and apparently has been addressed by only one other federal circuit court to date, the Third Circuit (DE, NJ, PA, VI), which issued a similar opinion in 2009.

The present case arose after the union involved terminated negotiations with Shelter Distribution, Inc. (“Shelter”) during collective bargaining over a successor CBA and disclaimed representation of Shelter’s employees.  This triggered the Teamsters Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare and Pension Fund to impose over $57 million in withdrawal liability against Shelter.  Shelter then demanded indemnification for the withdrawal liability from the union pursuant to the following CBA provision:

The Union and the members of the Bargaining Unit have agreed that only the liability of the Company to the Pension Benefit Plan of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest areas [sic] Pension Fund are, have been and shall be limited to the actual contributions it makes during the course of the past, present and future Contracts, and the Company shall not be liable for any other obligation or contingent obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever.  The Union shall indemnify the Company for any contingent liability which may be imposed under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980.

The union refused, and Shelter filed a lawsuit in federal district court to enforce the agreement.  The district court first deferred ruled that the dispute must first be arbitrated in accordance with the CBA’s arbitration provision.  Relying on the Third Circuit’s opinion, the arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that the indemnification provision was unenforceable as a violation of a public policy established in the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act prohibiting employers and unions from shifting withdrawal liability through a negotiated collective bargaining agreement.  The arbitrator ruled in favor of Shelter, and the district court upheld the arbitrator’s award.  The union then appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the district court’s decision.

The court noted that it has previously held that an agreement that purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility for a duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is void as against public policy.  However, a fiduciary’s agreement with a third party does not actually prevent the fiduciary from being held liable.  Rather, it merely provides that the third party will compensate the fiduciary in the event that it is held liable.  The court further noted that Section 410(b) of ERISA expressly allows a fiduciary to purchase insurance to cover any potential liability, and found that “there is no logical difference” between contracting with an insurance company for indemnification and contracting with a union to accomplish the same thing.  Here, there was no shifting of liability that might violate public policy, because Shelter remained financially liable to the fund.  The union simply agreed to reimburse Shelter, and that agreement is enforceable.

Shelter Dist., Inc. v.  General Drivers Warehousemen & Helpers Local 89, Case No. 11-5450 (6th Cir., 3/16/12).


OSHA Issues Memo on Employer Safety Incentive and Disincentive Policies and Practices

On March 12, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a memo from Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Fairfax to OSHA Regional Administrators and Whistleblower Program Managers detailing the agency’s policy regarding safety incentive programs and disincentive policies that can discourage employee reports of injuries which may violate section 11(c), or other whistleblower statutes.

On March 12, 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a memo from Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Fairfax to OSHA Regional Administrators and Whistleblower Program Managers detailing the agency’s policy regarding safety incentive programs and disincentive policies that can discourage employee reports of injuries which may violate section 11(c), or other whistleblower statutes.

The memo includes what OSHA considers the most common potentially discriminatory policies.  The following are examples of those policies cited by OSHA:

  1. Policies of taking disciplinary action against employees who are injured on the job, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury.
  2. Employees who reports an injury or illness is disciplined, and the stated reason is that the employee has violated an employer rule about the time or manner for reporting injuries and illnesses.
  3. Employees report an injury, and the employer imposes discipline on the ground that the injury resulted from the violation of a vague safety rule such as a requirement that employees “maintain situational awareness” or “work carefully” may be manipulated and used as a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
  4. Employers establish programs that unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an incentive to not report injuries such as entering all employees who have not been injured in the previous year in a drawing to win a prize, or a team of employees might be awarded a bonus if no one from the team is injured over some period of time.

OSHA also suggested in the memo that the potential for unlawful discrimination under all of these policies may increase when management or supervisory bonuses are linked to lower reported injury rates. For access to the entire text of the memo click here.

For additional information, contact Kevin Cannon, AGC’s Director of Safety,  at cannonk@agc.org or (703) 837-5410.


U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Apprenticeship Fund Expenses

Recent investigations by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) have found that apprenticeship and training funds are being misused for graduation ceremonies and advertising. In order to help clear up confusion, the DOL has issued a field assistance bulletin that gives definitions and examples of allowed and non-allowed expenses, particularly in regards to graduation ceremonies and promotional activities.

Recent investigations by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) have found that apprenticeship and training funds are being misused for graduation ceremonies and advertising. In order to help clear up confusion, the DOL has issued a field assistance bulletin that gives definitions and examples of allowed and non-allowed expenses, particularly in regards to graduation ceremonies and promotional activities.

Apprenticeship and training programs that are covered by ERISA – typically those that run a multiyear training program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship or a recognized State Apprenticeship Agency – are subject to an EBSA audit and should be aware both of EBSA’s stepped-up auditing of such programs and which expenses are not allowed to be funded by the training funds.

According to Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-01, issued by EBSA on April 2, 2012, expenses that do not qualify as allowable training or administrative expenses include:

  1. Payments for meals, gifts, entertainment or other expenses associated with graduation ceremonies;
  2. Payments to market, advertise or promote the apprenticeship or training program.

However, the bulletin added, “We cannot unconditionally classify all such payments as per se impermissible in light of the special characteristics and aims of apprenticeship and training plans,” since “a graduation ceremony that serves to congratulate graduates on their achievements and encourage them on their future endeavors may support the training objectives of the plan by establishing an incentive and goal for participants to successfully complete the program.”

“In every instance, apprenticeship and training plan fiduciaries must be able to justify plan expenses as appropriate means of carrying out the plan’s mission of training workers,” the bulletin cautioned.

In particular, the bulletin said, “expenses associated with a modest graduation ceremony,” may be a permissible use of plan assets, provided the expenses are:

  1. Modest compared to the plan’s assets;
  2. Approved in accordance with internal accounting and administrative controls; and
  3. Used for the cost of the ceremony.

“A graduation dinner for all attendees, valet parking, or payments for travel or hotel accommodations for graduating apprentices or guests” were cited as examples of impermissible expenses, while “light refreshments” were called permissible. In a meeting in February 2012, EBSA officials also gave an open bar as an example of an impermissible expense.

Similarly, certain outreach expenses may be covered by the plan.  According to the bulletin, the expenses “must be for marketing or promotion of the apprenticeship or training program itself (e.g., not for industry advancement or for sponsoring employers or employee organizations) and the amount of the expense must be consistent with the fiduciaries’ obligation to be prudent and economical in the use of plan assets.”  The bulletin cites as an example of an appropriate promotional expense the cost of giving t-shirts bearing the program’s logo to apprentices, provided that the expense is modest and the t-shirts are not purchased from parties in interest in prohibited transactions.  It cites as examples of inappropriate expenses (a) tickets to sporting and other entertainment events and (b) donations to favored charities or other causes.

The complete bulletin can be found at: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab2012-1.html.

For more information, contact Liz Elvin at elvinl@agc.org.


AGC Releases White Paper on Impacting Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations

AGC of America has released a white paper discussing the impact federal and nonfederal contractors, as well as other interested parties, can have on the accuracy of Davis-Bacon wage determinations.  The white paper, titled "Impacting Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations:  A Guide for Contributing to the Accuracy of Published Prevailing Wage Rates in Construction", is available for download on the AGC website.

AGC of America has released a white paper discussing the impact federal and nonfederal contractors, as well as other interested parties, can have on the accuracy of Davis-Bacon wage determinations.  The white paper, titled "Impacting Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations:  A Guide for Contributing to the Accuracy of Published Prevailing Wage Rates in Construction", is available for download on the AGC website.

AGC created the white paper due to an influx of questions from AGC chapters and members regarding Davis-Bacon wage determinations.  Some of the questions, which are addressed in the white paper, include how DOL establishes Davis-Bacon wage and fringe benefit rates, how to make a difference in the outcome of Davis-Bacon wage surveys, and how to challenge a Davis-Bacon wage determination once it has been published.

The white paper includes a web link to AGC’s NEW Construction Contractors Guide to Completing a Davis-Bacon Wage Survey: Why You SHOULD Participate & How.  This pamphlet explains the importance of contractor participation in Davis-Bacon wage survey process, whether or not the contractor performs work that is covered by the Davis-Bacon Act.  It also explains how Davis-Bacon wage survey data are used and provides detailed instruction for completing the wage survey form.

For additional information, contact Tamika C. Carter, PHR, at cartert@agc.org.


Connecting Veterans to the Construction Industry

Knowing that the nation’s veterans can serve as a good pool of potential construction craftworkers, but also understanding that making the connections with the nation’s veterans as they leave service can be difficult, AGC of America would like to encourage our chapters and members that have state- or federally-registered apprenticeship programs to connect with Helmets to Hardhats (H2H).

Knowing that the nation’s veterans can serve as a good pool of potential construction craftworkers, but also understanding that making the connections with the nation’s veterans as they leave service can be difficult, AGC of America would like to encourage our chapters and members that have state- or federally-registered apprenticeship programs to connect with Helmets to Hardhats (H2H).

Helmets to Hardhats is a national, web-based program that connects National Guard, Reserve and transitioning active-duty military members with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction trades. The program, created a decade ago, is administered by the Center for Military Recruitment, Assessment, and Veterans Employment, a non-profit Section 501(c)(3) joint labor-management committee; however, it is not limited to union training programs and employers.

Employers are required to participate in “proven apprenticeship training programs that are registered and approved by applicable federal and state authorities.”

The Construction Industry Training Council (CITC) of Washington, which is an approved H2H training program that AGC of Washington sponsors, runs an open-shop registered apprenticeship program with more than 400 apprentices in several craft programs.

According to its website, “H2H encourages all responsible employers who have construction-related career opportunities to apply for acceptance into our program.” Employers must meet certain criteria including: “access to a quality and federally-recognized registered apprentice program, a permanent system to ensure employment and training opportunities, formal curriculum and instructor training programs, related training and an on-the-job training program, an affirmative action program, and a positive record of caring for the welfare of workers as evidenced by health insurance, pension benefits and workers’ compensation coverage.”

AGC of America would like to urge all of its chapters and members with qualifying programs to reach out to their regional H2H representative to get approved by H2H to help bring veterans into the commercial construction industry. The regional representatives are:

  • Dr. William E. Davis – Mid-Atlantic Regional Director;
  • Bill Mulcrone – Mid-West Regional Director;
  • Phillip Ganley – Southeastern Field Representative;
  • Dan Lozano – Western Region Field Representative.

Contact information for regional representatives, as well as the executive staff can be found on the H2H website.

If you have questions, please contact Liz Elvin at elvinl@agc.org.


DOL Seeks Employment for Nation’s Youth

The U.S. Department of Labor has created a special website to help connect the nation’s youth with employers who can offer summer jobs and industry members are being encouraged to provide summer work for low-income youths that either helps them improve their soft skills, such as communication and teamwork; provides insight into the world of work through internships and job shadowing; or provides them a learning opportunity and wages.

The U.S. Department of Labor has created a special website to help connect the nation’s youth with employers who can offer summer jobs and industry members are being encouraged to provide summer work for low-income youths that either helps them improve their soft skills, such as communication and teamwork; provides insight into the world of work through internships and job shadowing; or provides them a learning opportunity and wages.

At issue are both the high unemployment rate – more than 50 percent - of the nation’s young people, ages 16 to 24, and the need for them to get valuable work experience before they head full time in the workforce.

Employers can sign up to provide jobs and learn more about the initiative, including what types of jobs qualify by visiting the DOL’s website: http://www.dol.gov/SummerJobs/.

Further, the DOL has created a toolkit for employers to assess their company and learn how they can best connect with youths.

If your company does offer summer jobs to youths, please let Liz Elvin know by sending an email to elvinl@agc.org letting AGC know how our industry has helped with this initiative so that we can publicize your good work!


Sean McGarvey Elected Building Trades President

The Governing Board of Presidents of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) on April 16 unanimously elected Sean McGarvey to be its president.

The Governing Board of Presidents of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) on April 16 unanimously elected Sean McGarvey to be its president.  He succeeds Mark Ayers, who died suddenly on April 8 of natural causes.   McGarvey, who was serving his second five-year term as BCTD’s secretary-treasurer when elected, took office immediately.  McGarvey comes from the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Local 252 in Philadelphia.  A new secretary-treasurer has not yet been announced.


Top Labor Law & Pension Issues Covered at AGC’s Annual Symposium

The AGC Labor and Employment Law Council held its 28th Annual Construction Labor Law Symposium April 19-20 in Washington, D.C.  Attorneys and chapter labor relations managers from across the country in record numbers attended to learn about the latest developments in construction labor and employment law.

The AGC Labor and Employment Law Council held its 28th Annual Construction Labor Law Symposium April 19-20 in Washington, D.C.  Attorneys and chapter labor relations managers from across the country in record numbers attended to learn about the latest developments in construction labor and employment law.

Council members and guest speakers provided presentations on a variety of timely topics, including:

  • Preparing for and Defending an OFCCP Construction Contractor Audit
  • Wage & Hour Compliance in the Construction Industry: Enforcer’s Perspective
  • Travel Time, Hours Worked, and Other Advanced Wage & Hour Issues Facing Construction Contractors
  • Access to Private Property: Union & Employee Rights and Management Responses
  • What is “Protected Concerted Activity” Today (Including Social Media Cases)?
  • What is “Featherbedding” – Under the NLRA and Under Your CBA?

For the first time, the symposium also included a pre-symposium Multiemployer Pension Workshop, which focused on withdrawal liability issues, such as the legal roadmap of withdrawal liability, calculating withdrawal liability, and enforcement of a withdrawal liability assessment.

The symposium featured several prominent guest speakers from the federal government, including:  Richard Griffin, member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Barry Kearney, associate general counsel for the NLRB’s Division of Advice; Jennifer Brand, associate solicitor with the U.S. Department of Labor; and Marvin Kaplan, workforce policy counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee.

Presentation handouts are posted in the Labor & HR Topical Resources area of AGC’s website, integrated into their respective topic areas.  Access is free and exclusive to all AGC members and Chapter staff.

The AGC Labor and Employment Law Council is a special network of labor lawyers who represent AGC members and Chapters.  The Council provides its annual symposium and other activities to facilitate the sharing of information and the best possible representation of AGC affiliates.  To ensure that your in-house and outside labor and employment lawyers stay on the cutting edge, be sure that they are members of the Council.

For information about Council membership, click here or contact Denise Gold at goldd@agc.org or (703) 837-5326.


For more information or to contact us directly, please visit agc.org | © AGC, 2004 – All rights reserved