In a 3-2 decision, the National Labor Relations Board overturns its prior decision that the union did not engage in objectionable conduct when its agents photographed employees during distribution of union campaign literature.

Overturning a National Labor Relations Board decision reinstating the terminated employee, the court said that the effect of stating that there were “gaping holes” in the business and that there were “voids” in the company’s critical knowledge base were damaging enough to warrant immediate termination; the employee’s later criticism of company management via an internet message additionally deprived him of protection.

The U.S. Department of Labor plans to reduce delinquent reporting among labor unions required to submit annual financial disclosure forms. Every labor organization representing private sector employees is required to file a report with the Office of Labor-Management Standards within 90 days of the end of its fiscal year. Each year, however, 30 to 40 percent of unions fail to submit their reports on time, and in some instances reports remain outstanding for over one year.

The effort to reduce this delinquency will focus on approximately 1,275 unions whose reports are over one year past due, including 118 of the largest unions, which are required to file the electronic Form LM-2. These unions should have filed financial disclosure forms for their fiscal years ending in 2005, with the reports due no later than March 31, 2006. The department intends to send warning letters to all of the covered unions and, after 30 days, the names of those unions that have not filed will be posted on the OLMS Web site at www.olms.dol.gov. Further enforcement action then will be pursued, including referral to local U.S. attorneys for civil or criminal enforcement.

A company which received a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that 48 employees did not match the information in SSA’s database did not have just cause to terminate 33 of the workers when they did not timely comply with the company’s requirement to get new social security cards, the Ninth Circuit holds.

The Service Employees International Union had filed a grievance on behalf of the fired workers, contending the terminations breached the collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator ruled for SEIU and awarded the fired workers back-pay and reinstatement, finding there was no convincing information that any of the fired workers were undocumented. A federal district court vacated the award, ruling that it violated public policy.

The Ninth Circuit says the case boils down to whether the company was put on constructive notice by the no-match letter, and the employee responses, that it was employing undocumented workers. If so, then the arbitrator’s award would force the company to violate federal law and would be properly vacated as against public policy, the Court says. However, the Court goes on to state that “an SSN discrepancy does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization.”

“In addition to misuse by undocumented workers, SSN mismatches could generate a no-match letter for many reasons, including typographical errors, name changes, compound last names prevalent in immigrant communities, and inaccurate or incomplete employer records,” the Court says in reversing the district court and ordering it to confirm the arbitration decision. Aramark Facility Services v. SEIU Lo. 1877

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is asking the D.C. District Court to void the final rule issued last July by the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards requiring unions to report financial transactions involving employers with workers the union represents or is seeking to represent.

The AFL-CIO claims that the final rule unlawfully expands the Form LM-30 by redefining “labor organization employee” to include those who are not actually employed by their union, but are instead bargaining unit members who perform representational functions during their workday—pay received from the employer for performing these functions would be reportable as pay that is not “received as a bona fide employee of such employer.” The union organization also alleges that “bona fide” loans from banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions made to union officers or employees would be reportable if the financial institution does business with the union involved. AFL-CIO v. Chao

The U.S. Dept of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards has issued its final rule revising the disclosure form required to be filed by union officers to report financial transactions involving employers with workers the union represents or is seeking to represent. Payments to spouses and minor children of the union officials are also covered by the rule. The rule adopts $250 as the amount above which a report is required; payments or benefits above $20 must be counted toward the $250 threshold. The rule also includes a limited exclusion for “widely attended gatherings” where the union official can attend two such functions without incurring a reporting obligation if the employer or business paying for the gathering spent $125 or less per attendee.

The U.S. Dept of Labor has announced it will review or develop certain rules involving the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) in 2008. The OSHA proposes rules covering occupational exposure to diacetyl, a major component of artificial butter flavoring, and extending confined-space protection to construction workers.

The ESA proposes to establish standards and procedures allowing the Office of Labor Management Standards to revoke the privilege of a union to file a simplified annual financial disclosure report, and instead requiring it to file a more detailed report. That and other proposed revisions to the required labor union reporting are supposed to improve financial disclosures and clarity about receipts and disbursements.

Unions are turning their attention and resources to the upcoming fall elections and a Congress controlled by Democrats to advance their agenda for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act—eliminating secret ballot elections—according to the Jackson Lewis law firm. It says that organized labor has called for passage of the Act within the first 100 days of the new administration in Washington.

The law firm also predicts more emphasis on “corporate campaigns” to pressure nonunion employers for recognition. The primary objective of a union corporate campaign is to gain the employer’s pledge of neutrality. Corporate campaigns press the organizing message on a target employer’s financial partners, vendors, board members, shareholders, local communities, and other business relationships, and uses government agencies, the courts, and other external processes for added leverage. If the employer bows to the pressure, it generally will give up its legal right to express freely its opposition to unionization to employees. According to the firm, corporate campaigns have proven to be successful in organizing workforces that are union-free or already are partially organized and unions such as the SEIU will direct a “vast majority of its collective resources to gaining employer agreements of neutrality through industry-wide organizing targeting some of the largest employers in the country.”

Labor unions would be required to report additional information about the receipt and distribution of union funds if rules proposed by the Office of Labor-Management Standards go into effect.

OLMS administers the union reporting requirements under the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which is aimed at safeguarding union funds from depletion by improper or illegal means and to deter union officers or employees from embezzling assets or making improper use of funds.

The proposed revisions would require unions to report the identity of purchasers or sellers in transactions involving union assets, and itemize certain receipts of $5,000 or more. Other changes require reporting all travel and hotel disbursements by union officials, and for the union to report the value of fringe benefits given to each union officer.

A local of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union breached its duty of fair representation in failing to file a grievance on behalf of a female member over a final warning which eventually led to her termination, the Ninth Circuit rules. The Ninth Circuit also affirms that the union discriminated against the member on the basis of her sex, since for men, the union “was an aggressive advocate,” but for women, the union accepted the employer’s decisions instead of taking their claims to arbitration. The decision means the UFCW owes the female member $16,304 in lost wages, $125,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, $50,000 in punitive damages, and unspecified attorney’s fees and costs. Beck v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Lo. 99