The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
Archive for January, 2011
AB 569 Gives New Industries Ability to Bargain Meal-Break Rules
January 13, 2011 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Orders generally prohibit employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes, require second meal periods after… Read More
Agency Fee Update
In both the public and private sectors, non-member employees who object to paying union dues and fees for non-collectivebargaining- related expenses must be allowed to pay a reduced, “agency” fee. In IAM Local Lodge 2777… Read More
Arbitration Round-Up
Here is a sampling of recent arbitration cases handled by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. Discharge / Harassment of co-worker – UPS and Teamsters Local 890: Arbitrator William Engler reversed the termination of a UPS employee,… Read More
Board Rejects Challenge to Voluntary Recognition Agreements
In a long-anticipated decision the NLRB has rejected a conservative challenge to voluntary recognition agreements. Dana Corp., 356 NLRB No. 49 (2010). The Board confronted the issue of whether an employer that enters into a… Read More
Cal DLSE Eases Standard for Exempting “Interns” From Wage Protections
The California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) has issued a new opinion letter defining when interns are exempt from the wage protections of the California Labor Code. Before the issuance of this new… Read More
California Supreme Court Narrows Application of Kin-Care
In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group (2010) 48 Cal.4th 104, the California Supreme Court limited the scope of California’s Kin- Care law. California Labor Code 233, the “Kin-Care” statute, does not compel employers to provide… Read More
Layoff Decision Not Subject to Bargaining
The California Supreme Court has confirmed PERB’s policy that a public employer’s economically motivated layoff decision is not subject to the meetand- confer obligation. The Court also ruled that a PERB decision not to issue… Read More
Employer’s “Closely Identified” Observer Invalidates Election
In a 2-1 decision, the Obama Board found that the employer, a school bus company, engaged in objectionable conduct in an election among its bus drivers by selecting a nonsupervisory trainer/substitute driver as its election… Read More
Leave for Organ & Bone Marrow Donation
January 12, 2011 by
Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Existing law requires that state employees who have exhausted all available sick leave be permitted to take a leave of absence with pay for up to 30 days for the purpose of organ donation, and… Read More
New Bill Clarifies POBAR’s One-Year Notice Rule
AB 955, which became effective January 1, 2010, abrogates an anti-worker decision issued by the California Supreme Court, and requires that a public agency complete its investigation of a public safety officer and notify the… Read More
AB 569 Gives New Industries Ability to Bargain Meal-Break Rules
January 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Orders generally prohibit employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes, require second meal periods after… Read More
Agency Fee Update
In both the public and private sectors, non-member employees who object to paying union dues and fees for non-collectivebargaining- related expenses must be allowed to pay a reduced, “agency” fee. In IAM Local Lodge 2777… Read More
Arbitration Round-Up
Here is a sampling of recent arbitration cases handled by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. Discharge / Harassment of co-worker – UPS and Teamsters Local 890: Arbitrator William Engler reversed the termination of a UPS employee,… Read More
Board Rejects Challenge to Voluntary Recognition Agreements
In a long-anticipated decision the NLRB has rejected a conservative challenge to voluntary recognition agreements. Dana Corp., 356 NLRB No. 49 (2010). The Board confronted the issue of whether an employer that enters into a… Read More
Cal DLSE Eases Standard for Exempting “Interns” From Wage Protections
The California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) has issued a new opinion letter defining when interns are exempt from the wage protections of the California Labor Code. Before the issuance of this new… Read More
California Supreme Court Narrows Application of Kin-Care
In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group (2010) 48 Cal.4th 104, the California Supreme Court limited the scope of California’s Kin- Care law. California Labor Code 233, the “Kin-Care” statute, does not compel employers to provide… Read More
Layoff Decision Not Subject to Bargaining
The California Supreme Court has confirmed PERB’s policy that a public employer’s economically motivated layoff decision is not subject to the meetand- confer obligation. The Court also ruled that a PERB decision not to issue… Read More
Employer’s “Closely Identified” Observer Invalidates Election
In a 2-1 decision, the Obama Board found that the employer, a school bus company, engaged in objectionable conduct in an election among its bus drivers by selecting a nonsupervisory trainer/substitute driver as its election… Read More
Leave for Organ & Bone Marrow Donation
January 12, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Existing law requires that state employees who have exhausted all available sick leave be permitted to take a leave of absence with pay for up to 30 days for the purpose of organ donation, and… Read More
New Bill Clarifies POBAR’s One-Year Notice Rule
AB 955, which became effective January 1, 2010, abrogates an anti-worker decision issued by the California Supreme Court, and requires that a public agency complete its investigation of a public safety officer and notify the… Read More
