Unsafe Working Conditions? Fight for Your Rights

July 27, 2018 by Beck Law P.C.

Have you been injured in a workplace accident due to unsafe working conditions? If so, you may wish to seek civil penalties from your employer. In California, employers who have accrued workplace safety violations from the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration may be held liable for damages in a civil court. An experienced labor & employment attorney can advise you further.

Workers Injured Due to Unsafe Working Conditions

Unfortunately, employees are exposed all too often in the workplace to unsafe working conditions. Over the years, a number of serious incidents have been the result of lax workplace policies and shoddy enforcement of safety procedures:

When an employee was installing a solar panel for Elite Electric, he slipped and crashed through a skylight, landing 29 feet below. He was not strapped into any type of protective harness, and no protective measures of any kind were available in the area.
Custodial employees at the Kaiser Foundations Hospital were expected to dispose of collection boxes that were filled with uncapped needles, even though the boxes often were filled to overflowing and the lids would not properly close. Employers must protect all workers from blood-borne disease, and were clearly negligent here.
Ashley Furniture faced several safety violations that imperiled employees, including failing to appropriately separate oxygen cylinders from fuel gas cylinders, failing to repair or replace damaged cords on industrial trucks, and failing to provide appropriate guards on a vertical band saw.
One employee was injured and another killed in an electrocution incident at Five Star Plastering Inc. when the metal scaffolding came into contact with a live power line. The workers had received no safety training prior to the accident.
Two Disney workers experienced a fatal, 80-foot fall from a platform that had been hoisted from a crane. The crane involved had not been inspected, and the operator had not performed necessary test runs or had rigging materials inspected prior to the accident.
Three employees were sprayed with molten metal after Tesla Motors failed to repair a damaged safety lock. None of the employees had been trained in potential hazards of working with the machine, and none were wearing protective headgear.
An employee for Three Frogs Inc. was killed after using incorrect procedures while cutting down a Eucalyptus tree. Appropriate training and rigging were not provided to the employees.
Two individuals contracted Valley Fever because employees were not protected from airborne dust at First Solar Electric.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Law Tagged With: workplace accidents, workplace injuries, workplace safety

Jointly Employed? New NLRB Ruling Has Major Implications

September 9, 2016 by Beck Law P.C.

Does your business include employees who are jointly employed (meaning that they work for you and another employer), as well as employees who work only for you? If the answer is yes, a new ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may complicate how your company handles collective bargaining.

In the case of Miller & Anderson, Inc., the NLRB was faced with the issue of whether workers who are solely employed by one employer can collectively bargain alongside jointly employed workers without the permission of their employers. It does not mark the first time the NLRB has ruled on the jointly employed issue. In 2000, in the case of M.B. Sturgis, Inc., the NLRB ruled that employer consent was not necessary. In 2006, however, the NLRB took the opposite approach in Oakwood Care Center, 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37, and held that Sturgis was incorrect.

The ruling in Miller & Anderson is a return to the Sturgis standard. It holds that jointly employed workers in this situation can bargain collectively, regardless of whether their employers approve.

A Return to the Old Standard

This issue involves Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 9(b) refers to different types of bargaining units, such as “employer units,” “craft units,” and “plant units.” The NLRB has long held that when employer units contain employees who work for multiple employers, these “multi-employer” units can only bargain collectively with the consent of all parties – meaning all of the employers involved have to give their permission.

But what happens when some of the employees are employed by a “supplier” employer (such as a temp agency) and perform work for a “user” employer? (The NLRB refers to these types of units as “Sturgis” units.) Does a Sturgis unit constitute a multi-employer unit?

In Oakwood, the NLRB ruled that Sturgis units are multi-employer units. However, Miller & Anderson reverses this holding. It states that multi-employer units are created “without regard for any preexisting community of interest among the employees of the various separate employers.” According to the ruling, a traditional multi-employer unit contains employees whose employers have nothing to do with one another, aside from being in the same industry.

A Sturgis unit, on the other hand, contains employees who are all employed by the same employer (even though some of the employees are joint employees, who also work for a different employer). The Miller & Anderson ruling states that because workers in Sturgis units share an employer, Sturgis units are not multi-employer units, and that they meet Section 9(b)’s definition of an employer unit – which does not require employer consent to bargain collectively. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Employment Law Tagged With: California employment law, lakeport labor lawyer, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Lawyer

Big Labor Rights Movement Win For California-Area Walmart Employees

January 21, 2015 by Beck Law P.C.

Big labor rights movement win for California-area Walmart employees. Walmart employees at stores in Richmond and Placerville, California recently had a big win against their retail giant employer. In fact, in December an administrative law judge found in favor of California-area Walmart employees who claimed that they were unfairly disciplined for attempting to organize employees in a strike and other collective bargaining activities. The National Labor Relations Board Administrative law judge of Washington, D.C. ordered Walmart to stop pressuring employees in order to prevent work stoppages, because it is believed that Walmart used intimidation tactics to encourage employees to return from strikes. Walmart was also ordered by the judge to change its dress code for its California employees who were being restricted from wearing pro workers’ rights shirts.

Labor Rights Movement

The administrative judge’s decision in favor of the California Walmart employees is a victory for the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart), an employee-based campaign advocating enhanced health benefits and better pay for Walmart’s employees at the companies 4,000+ U.S. stores. Though OUR Walmart is not an official labor union that represents workers in collective bargaining issues, the organization does receive substantial support and advice from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. On Black Friday of this year, OUR Walmart led employee protests at over 1,000 Walmart stores, while calling for more full-time jobs opportunities and also for a $14 base wage paid to employees.

The OUR Walmart Labor Movement

The NLRB ruling was supported by the federal law that prohibits employer retaliation against workers who support unions, and also prohibits employers from making intimidating statements intended to discourage workers from supporting worker unions. The NLRB judge ruled that a California Walmart manager had unlawfully threatened to close a Walmart store if employees decided to join the (Organized United for Respect at Walmart) or “OUR” Walmart in its demands for higher wages, and also that Walmart had illegally disciplined employees for exercising their legal right to go on strike. It was discovered that one specific Walmart manager had used illegal intimidation tactics against workers by stating that “If it were up to me, I’d shoot the union.” Furthermore, it was also found that it was an unlawful statement for the Walmart managers to tell its employees that their co-workers who had returned from a one-day strike would soon be looking for new jobs.

In addition to claims that Walmart prevented employees from exercising their right to both strike and organize, the suit also focused on dress code restrictions enforced at Walmart’s California stores that prohibited employees from wearing most logos excluding clothing manufacturers and also Walmart logos. This restriction served to prevent workers from wearing clothing that expressed the OUR Walmart cause and message. The administrative judge’s ruling, which focused only on the two specific California Walmart stores, is the first NLRB judge opinion that was submitted since OUR Walmart began operations in 2010. Complaints about labor practices at Walmarts across the U.S. have also been consolidated into one nationwide complaint that is currently ongoing.

If you need legal advice and representation regarding workers’ collective bargaining rights, or any other employment law legal assistance, you should contact our employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in California today.

Photo Credit: JeepersMedia via Compfight cc

Filed Under: Employment Law, News Tagged With: California employment attorneys, California labor attorneys, lake county california labor attorney, mendocino county labor lawyer, sonoma county labor lawyer

How Long do I Have to Sue My Employer?

September 9, 2014 by Beck Law P.C.

How Long do I Have to Sue My Employer? If your potential suit is in regards to a Fair Employment and Housing Act Violation, earlier this year, a California Court of Appeals released a decision regarding an employee’s claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The decision is the first to address the issue of how long an employee has to file a claim, that length of time also known as the statute of limitations. (Non-FEHA claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring)

Fair Employment and Housing Act

FEHA prevents discrimination in employment on the basis of a variety of reasons, including:

Age (over 40);
Race;
Marital status;
Gender; and
Sexual orientation.

FEHA also protects employees from retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace. Employees may file private lawsuits under the FEHA, but they first must go to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to exhaust their administrative remedies. An employee has one year from the date of the discriminatory act to file a claim with the Department to seek what is referred to as a right to sue letter.

Employers Cannot Shorten the Time to Sue under the FEHA

The employee in the case, Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates et al., worked as a security guard for a company in Northern California and alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a supervisor. As the court’s decision details, Ms. Ellis reported unwanted sexual advances and unrealized promises to raise her rate of pay. Ms. Ellis filed a claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received a right to sue letter. She then filed a lawsuit against her former employer.

The lower court dismissed Ms. Ellis’ claims because she had signed an employment agreement when she started working for the security company in which she agreed that she only had 6 months to bring any discrimination claims. While parties to agreements sometimes do agree to shorten the statute of limitations, the practice is one that has been met with varying success throughout the country. In this particular instance, the Court of Appeals determined that the provision in the contract shortening the statute of limitations was against public policy and it reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals’ decision on public policy was based on the premise that the FEHA is designed to protect employees against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace and provides remedies for employees who have experienced either. The FEHA also requires employees to exhaust all administrative remedies. An employee who follows the rules of the FEHA and exhausts all administrative remedies will likely not be able to sue within a shortened amount of time as allowed by an employment contract. Therefore, if enforced, the 6-month time period that Ms. Ellis agreed to in her employment contract would have the result of not allowing Ms. Ellis to pursue her claims under the FEHA. The court determined that this was against public policy and the purpose of the FEHA.

Contact Us for Legal Help

Do you feel you have been harassed or discriminated against at your place of employment? The labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law P.C. have experience litigating employment lawsuits, including sexual harassment and retaliation cases and can advise you on these types of matters. Please contact us if online or by phone at 707-576-7175 to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

Photo Credit: thinkpanama via Compfight cc

Filed Under: Blog, Employee Rights, Employment Law Tagged With: employment attorney, employment lawyer, Labor Attorney, Labor Lawyer

Small Businesses Risk $100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

October 3, 2013 by Beck Law P.C.

Even though many of us do not quite understand the rules of Obamacare, or what we will be offering our employees, it is no excuse according to the Department of Labor. Small business owners who were led to believe that they could “ease” into the Obamacare transition in 2015, and perhaps thought they had time to absorb the rules and guidelines, may be in for an expensive wake-up call next month.

$100 Per Day Obamacare Fine

Beginning Oct. 1, all businesses with at least one employee and $500,000 in annual revenue must notify all employees by letter about the Affordable Care Act’s health-care exchanges, or face up to a $100-per-day fine. The requirement applies to any business regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is mostly all businesses, regardless of size.

In addition whenever you hire a new employee, you have 14 days in which to give them all the most current information regarding their healthcare options under the Affordable Care Act’s market exchanges, according to the Department of Labor, or penalties and fines will accrue. In order to get the model notice that must be sent to all employees, visit the Department of Labor website and download the pdf.

Filed Under: Employment Law, News Tagged With: Affordable care act, Labor Law

California Labor and Employment Law Update – Human Trafficking

June 17, 2013 by Beck Law P.C.

As taxpayers around the country scramble to meet the April 15th tax deadline, a California labor and employment law deadline has already come and gone.

Governor Brown back in September of 2012 signed into law SB 1193 which adds section 52.6 to the Civil Code relating to human trafficking. SB 1193 requires specified businesses to post an 8.5″ x 11″ notice, on or before April 1, 2013, that contains information about organizations that provide services to eliminate slavery and human trafficking. The Department of Justice will develop a model notice that complies with the requirements of SB 1193 and make the model notice available. This notice will also be made available on HRCalifornia after the Department of Justice has created it.

Here is a summary of the Public Notice Requirements

The following is a summary of the requirements set forth by Senate Bill 1193. This summary is not a regulation as defined by the California Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code § 11340.5) and does not constitute an agency interpretation of Civil Code § 52.6.

1. Who Must Post a Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6 mandates that the following businesses post the notice:

On-sale general public premises licensees under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code).
Adult or sexually oriented businesses, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 318.5 of the Penal Code.
Primary airports, as defined in Section 47102(16) of Title 49 of the United States Code.
Intercity passenger rail or light rail stations.
Bus stations.
Truck stops. For purposes of this section, “truck stop” means a privately owned and operated facility that provides food, fuel, shower or other sanitary facilities, and lawful overnight truck parking.
Emergency rooms within general acute care hospitals.
Urgent care centers.
Farm labor contractors, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682 of the Labor Code.
Privately operated job recruitment centers.
Roadside rest areas.
Businesses or establishments that offer massage or bodywork services for compensation and are not described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code.

2. Where Must the Public Notice Be Posted

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that a specified business or other establishment must post the notice in a conspicuous place near the public entrance of the establishment or in another conspicuous location in clear view of the public and employees where similar notices are customarily posted.

3. What the Public Notice Must Say

Civil Code § 52.6 requires that the public notice to be posted must be at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and written in size 16 font. Additionally, the public notice must state:

“If you or someone you know is being forced to engage in any activity and cannot leave — whether it is commercial sex, housework, farm work, construction, factory, retail, or restaurant work, or any other activity — call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center at 1-888-373-7888 or the California Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) at 1-888-KEY-2-FRE(EDOM) or 1-888-539-2373 to access help and services. Victims of slavery and human trafficking are protected under United States and California law.

The hotlines are:

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Toll-free.
Operated by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.
Anonymous and confidential.
Accessible in more than 160 languages.
Able to provide help, referral to services, training, and general information.”

4. What Languages the Public Notices Must Contain

The specified businesses and other establishments must post the notice in English, Spanish, and in one other language that is the most widely spoken language in the business or establishment’s location (and for which translation is mandated by the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq.). For those counties where a language other than English or Spanish is the most widely spoken language, Civil Code § 52.6 does not require the public notice to be printed in the non-English and non-Spanish language.

5. The Attorney General’s Model Public Notice

The Attorney General of California has developed a “model notice” available for download on the California Department of Justice’s Internet website as of March 27, 2013. The model notice is available in English and Spanish. The Attorney General has also provided a list of counties in which a third language other than English and Spanish is the most widely spoken language.

6. Liability and Penalty for Failing to Post the Public Notice

Civil Code § 52.6(e) creates civil liability for a business or establishment that fails to comply with the posting requirement. The penalty for violating this law is $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

If you have any questions on the Human Trafficking posting, please contact the California Attorney General’s Office, Victims’ Services Unit.

Filed Under: Employment Law, News Tagged With: Labor Law

Why Does My Small Business Need an Employee Handbook?

April 25, 2013 by Beck Law P.C.

Too small for an employee handbook?

One of the first questions we ask a new small business owner client is: Do you have an employee handbook? More often than not, they say “NO” and on the rare occasion that they do have one, it was written years ago, has never been updated and sits in some storage room nearly forgotten.

It’s remarkable the number of small businesses that have no handbook at all! There are many good reasons to create an employee handbook, and in fact, small businesses can do themselves great financial harm without one.

Courts, the Department of Labor, and the EEOC will automatically assume, if you have no employee handbook, that you have not informed your employees of the up to date information that you are legally bound to tell employees in writing, such as their right to vote, their earnings breakdown, their right to pregnancy leave and so forth. The list of what businesses must legally tell employees grows longer every year. Not having an employee handbook may lead these agencies to dig more deeply into your business practices to determine your compliance with wall postings, payroll accounts and such, which could then lead to severe penalties if you are not in compliance and up to date.

Having an employee handbook, and updating it annually, can protect an employer from liability if an employee decides to sue. The employee handbook is a document where important policies and procedures are outlined in detail and explained to the workforce.

Here are some guidelines as to what must be included in the company employee handbook:

Workplace rules (e.g., work schedules, length of breaks, days off, etc.).
Strong language that supports an “off clock” break policy and enforcement of such;
Description of the culture of your organization;
Employment at Will language written appropriately with the inclusion that the business owner has the only right to choose an employment agreement;
Anti-discrimination policies;
Sexual harassment policies;
Leave policies;
Open door policies;
Anti-retaliation policies;
Termination procedures;
Insurance and COBRA information;
Pregnancy and Postpartum policies;
Exempt vs. Non-Exempt language;
Clocking in to work policies;
No working off clock policy;
Overtime policies;
FTO/Vacation policies;
Right to Vote policy;
Non-discriminatory dress code policies;
Non-discriminatory smoking policies;
Disclaimer regarding technology ownership;
Technology Use policies;
Employee Fiduciary Duty to Employer language;
Employee Duty of Loyalty to Employer language.

All employees should be given time to review the employee manual and then be required to sign and date a letter of agreement or acknowledgement page that clearly states they’ve read the handbook and understand its contents.

Employee handbooks should be updated annually. The new employee handbook should then be , re-distributed and A new letter of agreement or acknowledgement page should be signed by all employees and saved in each employee’s file. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Employee Handbook, Employment Law, News Tagged With: Petaluma Employment Attorney, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, Ukiah Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney, Ukiah Labor Lawyer

Santa Rosa Employer Employee Data Privacy Protection

October 19, 2012 by Beck Law P.C.

New Nightmare for Santa Rosa Employer Employee Data Privacy Protection & Employer Responsibilities

Scenario: A key employee resigns and you find that they have shared private and personal information about your customers on Facebook.

Nowadays, employers collect a great deal of personal information about their employees, customers, patients, clients, and others along the course of the work day. Companies use employees’ personal information for many reasons such as administration of payroll, employee benefit plans, and evaluation of employment applications, the handling of independent contractors, terminated employees, retired employees and so forth. In this computer dependent age, personal data is being shared and transferred between organizations online; and thus, maintaining compliance with applicable data privacy laws is an ever increasing responsibility of employers.

Companies need to be aware of their obligations under the profusion of data protection laws and regulations that govern the collection, use and transfer of personal information. Additionally, data privacy laws include not only active employee information, but extend to any non-employee groups whose personal data they may acquire.

Minimizing Employer Risk

The Petaluma employment law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. suggest the following to attempt to minimize employer risk.

Companies should seek counsel annually with an experienced employment law attorney, to acquire the appropriate legal interpretive guidance on compliance matters so as to avoid legal violations and security breaches involving employee personal data.

Policies should include legal language specifically directed to employee procedures in regard to data privacy to ensure the best practices that aim to limit the amount of personal data they collect, process, transfer and store.

Companies should limit access to personal data and provide training to staff that handles personal data.

Companies should include legal language in their policies stating that business computers will be monitored and reviewed periodically to ensure employees are applying appropriate security measures regarding personal data.

Even Still: All the precautionary measures in the world will not stop a dishonest employee from selling your business’s personal information, such as your customer social security numbers online and you, as the business owner will be held accountable for their actions.

There is absolutely nothing an employer can to do to prevent an employee from texting information from their personal phone or simpler still, writing down the information and throwing it in their purse or pocket before walking out the door.

Therefore, the labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law P.C. offer these further tips:

Perform all due diligence during the interview process when hiring a new employee. Take your time, and have multiple interviews so that you begin to trust the person you are about to hire, before you hire them. Call all references and carefully listen to not only what they say, but more importantly, what they don’t say. Ask lots of questions to cull out information that may give you more clues to this person’s integrity. Use your intuition, and perform all interviews with other trusted staff members to get their feedback, and if any one of you feel something is not quite right with this person’s integrity, move on until you feel very comfortable with who you are going to hire.

For current employees: Know your employees, be attentive and listen to them, use good communication and eye contact. Always honor and praise good work. Be on the look- out for suspicious behavior such as when an employee uses negative body language or challenges you in ways that you find inappropriate to the situation, as this may an indication of guilt that they may be doing something behind your back. Listen to other employees who report that they do not feel comfortable about another employee’s actions. If you feel a negative feeling about an employee, trust your feeling, as you are most likely correct. If you suspect and employee of dishonesty, begin your due diligence research and contact an experienced employment attorney, such as Beck Law P.C. to handle the appropriate legal remedy and counseling process to remove said employee from your work place.

Filed Under: Blog, Employee Data Privacy, Employer Data Privacy, Employment Law Tagged With: Petaluma Employment Attorney, Petaluma Employment Lawyer, Petaluma Labor Attorney, Petaluma Labor Lawyer, Santa Rosa Employment Attorney, Santa Rosa Employment Lawyer, Santa Rosa Labor Attorney, Santa Rosa Labor Lawyer, Ukiah Employment Attorney, Ukiah Employment Lawyer, Ukiah Labor Attorney, Ukiah Labor Lawyer

Silicon Valley venture capital firm subject of gender discrimination lawsuit

May 22, 2012 by Beck Law P.C.

Silicon Valley venture capital firm subject of gender discrimination lawsuit (via The Bay Citizen)

Storied Menlo Park venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has funneled money into some of the world’s most high profile companies: AOL, Amazon, Genentech, WebMD, and Zynga — to name a few. And now it’s the subject of a gender discrimination suit. Ellen Pao, a partner in the firm,…

How to File a Work Discrimination Claim

March 2, 2012 by Beck Law P.C.

How to File a Work Discrimination Claim (via PR Newswire)

Mediation can help speed up case resolutions and avoid litigation WASHINGTON, March 2, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Work discrimination is not only wrong, it’s illegal. The U.S. government has laws that prohibit work discrimination based on age, disability, place of origin, race, religion and sex…