A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal has basically banned unions from picketing on business property within California. In its opinion the court invalidated two California laws designed to protect union demonstrations on business property.  The reviewing court ordered the trial court to grant an injunction restraining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“the Union”) from picketing in front of a Sacramento warehouse store owned by Ralphs Grocery Co. (“Ralphs”). Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8, No. C060413 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2010).

Facts: The dispute arose when several members of the Union picketed in front of Food Co., a subsidiary of Ralphs, for being a nonunion store. Ralphs sued for trespass and sought to enjoin the unauthorized picketing after an unsuccessful attempt to require the Union to follow Food Co.’s rules for speech on the property. The rules prohibited, in part, the distribution of literature, physical contact with any person, display of signs larger than two feet by three feet, and speech within 20 feet of the store entrance. Ralphs alleged that the Union didn’t follow the rules ; specifically, that the Union  was handing out flyers and enlisting supporters within five feet of the entrance.

In bringing suit, Ralphs challenged the constitutionality of California’s Moscone Act, which deprived state courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against “peaceful picketing or patrolling” involving any labor dispute. Ralph’s lawsuit also challenged California’s Labor Code section 1131.8, which imposed severe restrictions on a property owner’s right to obtain injunctive relief against union activities. The trial court ruled that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional because it constituted content based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The trial court, however, upheld the constitutionality of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 in light of a prior appellate decision which held that Labor Code section 1138.1 did not violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Applying Labor Code section 1138.1, the trial court denied Ralphs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ralphs appealed.

Decision: Three questions of law were at issue on appeal:

1) Is the entrance area of Food Co., where the picketing was taking place, a public or private forum? If public, the California Constitution required that any time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech be reasonable. The court found that Food Co.’s entrance area was not a public forum, so the company was free to restrict the type of speech allowed at its entrance.

2) Is California’s Moscone Act, which limited the ability of courts to issue injunctions in labor relations cases, constitutional? The constitutionality of the Moscone Act was at issue because the Act’s selective restriction was based on the content of the speech. The court held that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it afforded preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues.

3) Is the requirement of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 that factual showings be made before a court is able to grant an injunction in a labor dispute constitutional (i.e., that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and that substantial and irreparable injury to the property would result)? The court found that this Labor Code section was unconstitutional for the same reasons as that of the Moscone Act.

Stay Tuned: Although the decision may be subject to further appeal, this case provides important guidance for employers dealing with the issue of regulating union activity on business property. The court’s ruling is seen as a major victory for California retailers who have endured loss of business and damage to their image resulting from union picketing on their properties. A wide spectrum of businesses ranging from hospitals to retail chain stores are expected to be impacted by this decision. Employers need to have a firm grasp of what constitutes public and private forums under California law and be able to determine the types of content neutral restrictions that are enforceable on their premises.

This month, the EEOC and Sears, Roebuck & Co. entered into a court approved settlement agreement in the amount of $6,200,000.00 entitling the 235 impacted employees to over $26,000 each.  The distribution is being carried out pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson on September 29, 2009. You can read the EEOC’s press release here.

In its lawsuit against Sears, the EEOC had alleged that Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA.

This large settlement reminds employers that if employees are out on some form of statutory leave, like the workers’ compensation leave at issue in the Sears matter, and the employee exhausts the leave but is still experiencing a medical condition that qualifies under the ADA or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the employer must engage in the “interactive process” to determine if a reasonable accommodation (including a possible extension of the employee’s leave) is available and can be provided to the employee without creating an undue hardship on the employer.  Otherwise, strict application of leave policies that result in the termination of an employee who fails to return to work at the exhaustion of such leave may result in significant liability for the employer.

Apparently, there is a new set of class action cases that have been filed recently against several large employers for alleged “seating” violations under the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”). In these cases, plaintiffs seek to enforce Section 14 of the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, which until recently was a largely unnoticed provision of the Order that requires employers to provide seating for their employees under certain circumstances. While past case law gave employers some comfort, a new Northern District of California decision, Curie-White v. Blockbuster, has expanded damages available to plaintiffs in such cases, and will likely lead to further claims being filed.

Section 14 of IWC Wage Order 7 (entitled “Seats”), which is typical of several other industry specific wage orders, requires that (a) all workers shall be provided with suitable seating when the nature of the work reasonably permits it; and (b) when the nature of the work requires standing, the employer must provide reasonable seating in proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.  However, Section 14 does not contain its own penalty provision and does not address seating claims.

The new class action claims assert that employers who fail to comply with Wage Order seating requirements violate Section 1198 of the Labor Code, which makes it illegal to employ an employee under conditions that are prohibited by an IWC Wage Order.  These new seating claims have been brought under the Private Attorneys General Action of 2004 (“PAGA”), which allows recovery for violations of all provisions of the Labor Code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.  PAGA penalties consist of $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the first violation, and $200 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.

Prior to the decision in Curie-White v. Blockbuster, the only court opinion to address a seating claim was in Hamilton v. SF Hilton and the decision there weighed heavily in favor of the employer.   However, In Curie-White, the court significantly undermined several of the key defenses that had succeeded in the Hamilton case.  Most significantly, the court ruled that plaintiffs may seek civil penalties under PAGA because the penalty provision of the Wage Order “does not provide a penalty for the violation…specifically a failure to provide seats for employees.”

Given the conflict between the Hamilton and Curie-White decisions, it is likely that the issue will continue to be litigated in the more recent seating claims cases.  The ultimate resolution in those cases will likely determine whether the these seating claims form a new fad in class action litigation.

WHAT TO DO:

• Document any efforts that have been made to determine whether seats are necessary;

• Review and analyze current job descriptions and customer service standards to determine whether they clearly identify jobs where continual mobility and standing are essential functions of the job, and incorporate those standards into the job descriptions;

• Provide an adequate number of suitable seats in a nearby break room and allow employees to use the seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.

Here is a link to Wage Order 7, which contains the relevant Seating Requirements at Section 14

Is there a new wave of Class Action cases coming in California?

Craig Etter and Phillip Pillar of Greenberg Traurig, LLP have posted an article that suggessts IRS workplace audits will increase beginning in 2010.  A portion of their article, reprinted by the Association of Corporate Counsel, is copied below, with a link at the end of this post directing you to the complete article with footnotes.

Internal Revenue Service Will Conduct Thousands of Random Employer Audits Beginning in 2010 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials recently stated that the IRS will randomly audit approximately 6,000 U.S. employers for employment tax compliance and proper worker classification. According to reports, the audits will begin in February 2010 and are expected to be completed within three years.1

The IRS intends to audit employers of all sizes and types, including non-profit organizations. The audits are part of the IRS’ National Research Program and have a two-fold purpose, (1) to generate revenue from non-compliant employers and (2) to serve as a statistical sample of employers that are in compliance while identifying areas of non-compliance and techniques used to avoid employment taxes.

The IRS expects to test how much of the estimated $15 billion “tax gap” attributed to employment taxes actually exists and may be closed.2 Also, the IRS expects the statistical evidence will help determine whether legislative or enforcement changes are necessary to address common employment tax evasion techniques.3 As a result, the audits are expected to be exhaustive and will concentrate on five employment tax issues:

1. worker classification,
2. fringe benefits,
3. non-filers,
4. officers’ compensation and
5. employee expense reimbursements.4

While the audits will begin with the examination of federal employment tax returns (Forms 941), the process will involve many other documents that pertain to the employers’ practices in these five areas.

A major focus of the audit will be on employers that have improperly classified their workers as independent contractors instead of employees. There are many temptations to misclassify workers: (a) shifting the cost of employment taxes to workers, (b) avoiding employee benefit costs, and (c) eliminating responsibilities under employment laws, such as civil rights or wage and hour laws. However, employers who misclassify their workers as independent contractors risk significant tax liabilities upon detection by the IRS, even if the employee paid the employment taxes due.5

Other issues that may be raised include proper treatment of (i) fringe benefits and per diems as tax-free, rather than as compensation subject to income and employment taxes, (ii) employee expense reimbursements that must comply with accountable plan rules for exclusion from employees’ gross income and (iii) executive compensation as reasonable in amount. The wide-ranging audit program is part of a trend to crack down on employment tax non-compliance, which includes heightened enforcement at the federal level6 and an increasing number of states sharing information with the IRS regarding questionable tax practices.7 Employers of every size and type should realize that their compliance with federal employment tax obligations may be scrutinized, and that they should review their compliance programs with their tax advisors before the audits begin.

For the full article with footnotes, click here.

For tax withholding changes that were effective November 1st – check this post too.

For help with compliance check out this post on hiring outsourced general counsel.

Plaintiffs, in Stuart v. RadioShack, sought reimbursement for expenses related to use of their personal vehicles to perform inter-company store transfers, which vehicle use was known by the employer even though the employees had not followed proper internal procedures for requesting reimbursement. The issue before the court was whether an employee must first make a proper request for reimbursement with his or her employer before the employer’s duty to indemnify under Labor Code section 2802 is triggered.

California Labor Code section 2802 provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.”  And Section 2804 further provides that “Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof, is null and void.”

The Court addressed the question of what happens when an employee does not report the expense according to company policy, and held, in effect, that the requirements of the statute must override any internal reimbursement rules set by the employer. California employees have a right to be reimbursed for their work related expenses, such as business travel, equipment, materials, and training, when the employer knows or has reason to know that the employee has incurred the expense, even when the employee fails to follow internal reimbursement protocol established by the employer.

Employers should continue to create policies and procedures for expense reimbursement; however, they should also recognize that they remain liable to reimburse the employee’s expenses even when the employee fails to adhere to the exact terms of the reimbursement policy. Case law now provides that the employee’s failure to follow company reimbursement protocol will be an unlikely defense for employers who fail to make a valid reimbursement required under Labor Code 2802.