Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Employer Compliance Alert! Union Backed Election Rule Changes

Thanks to our partners at UBA, we are able to provide you with an Employer Compliance Alert:


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PASSES LIMITED VERSION OF UNION-BACKED ELECTION RULE CHANGES

On November 30, during a closely-watched session, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Pearce and Member Craig Becker voted to proceed with preparation of a final rule modifying the Board's election procedures to speed up the process in certain circumstances.  Member Brian Hayes, the only Republican Board member, opposed the majority's effort as a mistake that would "ultimately cause harm to the agency and the constituencies we serve."

The changes that ultimately were passed represent a substantially more limited version of what initially had been proposed by the Board's majority and are summarized as follows:
  • Elimination of pre-election appeals to the Board from the actions of the Regional Director on an election petition, providing instead only for a single, discretionary appeal of pre-election and post-election issues after the votes are cast.  An appeal to the Board prior to the election is limited to issues that otherwise would escape Board review if not raised prior to the election.   
  • Express direction that a pre-election hearing is to determine only whether a question concerning representation exists, and that the hearing officer has authority to limit evidence taken at the hearing where the evidence does not have relevance to a genuine issue of fact material to that issue.  This means that questions of individual voter eligibility (as opposed to appropriate bargaining unit composition) will be litigated after the election, as opposed to before.  Also, the hearing officer may decline requests of parties to submit post-hearing briefs, which right previously was guaranteed by the Board's rules.
  • Elimination of the current requirement that the vote may not be held sooner than 25 days after the Board's Regional Director issues a Direction of Election.  As a result, some elections likely will be held sooner after the Direction of Election than was previously the case.
The new rules were passed notwithstanding substantial criticism from the business community and others who viewed this move as an attempt by labor-friendly Board members to speed up the election process prior to the end of Member Becker's recess appointment that ends on December 31.  As a result of the criticism and the threat by Member Hayes to resign, which move would have left the Board with two members and would have divested the Board from authority to conduct its business, the majority watered down the original proposal, eliminating the following proposed changes:
  • The requirement that a hearing be held within seven days of the filing of a union's representation petition.
  • Allowing the union's petition to be filed electronically, rather than the current practice requiring filing by hand or regular mail.
  • The requirement that the employer prepare and file a comprehensive "statement of position" on the union's election petition no later than the date of the hearing, together with the requirement that any issues not raised by the employer in its statement are waived by the employer and may not be raised later.
  • The requirement that unions be given employees' email addresses and telephone numbers prior to the election.
  • The requirement that the voter eligibility list ("Excelsior list") be given to the union within two work days of the Direction of Election, instead of the current rule allowing for seven work days.
These additional proposals remain open to future debate and adoption by the Board.  However, with the impending expiration of Member Becker's recess appointment, the question of whether these additional proposals stand a chance of passing remains unclear.
The Board will draft a final rule codifying the adopted changes. The final rule is intended to be issued prior to the expiration of Member Becker's term. Opponents of the changes are working to block even the more limited the changes via legislation (the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, H.R. 3094), and potentially through judicial action.

Even though the new rule will have less impact on employers than the originally proposed rule, the new rule still substantially shortens the period from filing of the petition to the date of election from the current Board election target of 42 days.  Elections almost certainly will be held more quickly. The actual period will be determined by the circumstances of each case. The fact that elections will be held more quickly underscores the need of employers to remain constantly vigilant regarding potential union organizing efforts in order to address such efforts at the earliest possible opportunity.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Health Care Reform Update: Benefits Summary Deadline Delayed

We have worked with our partners at UBA to provide you with the latest HCR Update:


Employer Health Care Reform Law Communication Mandate Delayed
Employers have more time to comply with rules dictated by the health care reform law that will require them to revamp how they communicate and explain their health care plans.  In a notice published Nov. 17, the Department of Labor (DOL) said the reporting requirements would not go into effect until after final rules are published.   "It is anticipated that the...final regulations, once issued, will include an applicability date that gives group health plans and health insurance issuers sufficient time to comply," the Labor Department said.

At the time the proposed rules were issued by the Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor and Treasury departments, federal regulators said they would go into effect on March 23, 2012.  Among other things, the proposed rules would require employers to provide employees with an "easy-to-understand" summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) and, upon request, a glossary of commonly used health care coverage terms, such as deductible and copay.  Plus, the summary of benefits and coverage would have to include the portion of expenses a health care plan would cover in each of three situations: having a baby, treating breast cancer and managing diabetes.

Agencies Issue FAQs on Health Care Reform's SBC Requirement and on Mental Health Parity Implementation
The DOL, HHS, and IRS have jointly issued a new set of frequently asked questions (Part VII) addressing health care reform's summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) requirement plus mental health parity implementation (MHPAEA).   This new FAQ seems to confirm that the final regulations may be significantly different from the proposals and suggests that there may be relief as to the applicability date as well.  While no one can predict exactly what the final requirements will be and although general preparation for future compliance probably remains advisable, relying too closely on current proposals may not be the best use of time and resources. 


Also, plan sponsors and their advisors will want to study the mental health parity FAQs closely.  The agencies characterize these as "clarifying FAQs" and stress that they will continue to investigate complaints regarding the MHPAEA requirements and will take enforcement action for violations to ensure compliance (these requirements took effect with plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2010).

The full text is available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca7.html.