NLRB Overrules M.B. Sturgis
December 27, 2004
An important representation issue under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) involves scenarios where the scope of a bargaining unit is proposed to include both an employer's regular workers and employees supplied by a separate employer, such as a staffing agency. Just over 4 years ago in <i>M. B. Sturgis</i>, 331 NLRB 1298 (2000), the Board stated that "a growing number of employees who are part of what is commonly described as the 'contingent work force' are being effectively denied representational rights guaranteed them under the National Labor Relations Act." Therefore, the Board majority in <i>Sturgis</i> -- consisting of Chairman Truesdale and Members Fox and Liebman -- overruled prior precedent in <i>Lee Hospital</i>, 300 NLRB 947 (1990) and <i>Greenhoot, Inc.</i>, 205 NLRB 250 (1973), and held that a bargaining unit could include both regular and supplied employees without the consent of both the regular employer and the supplier employer.
Cell Phones in the Office
November 29, 2004
Cellular phone ownership and use is pervasive. More than 70 million Americans reportedly own a cell phone and a high percentage are used for business purposes. Also on the rise are instances of phone use while driving, increasingly blurring the boundary between work and personal time, as people can stay connected professionally during commutes, vacations or other personal pursuits.
New ADA Guidelines Will Affect Many Employers
November 29, 2004
For nearly 15 years, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has helped clear away barriers to public accommodations, employment, transportation, government services and telecommunications for disabled Americans. This landmark legislation granted long-overdue civil rights protections and equal opportunity guarantees to individuals with disabilities, just as earlier civil rights legislation addressed discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion or age. While the ADA improved the lives of countless disabled individuals, it also created new challenges for many employers. And as of this summer, some employers will likely face an even tougher, more complex set of ADA accessibility guidelines, the impact of which is only beginning to be understood.
New Tax Requirements for Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
November 29, 2004
In addition to or in lieu of broad-based tax-qualified retirement plans, employers often provide select executives or groups of executives with nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements. These "arrangements" may be in the form of a plan, a written agreement or even a clause in an employment agreement. Much like a "401(k)" tax-qualified retirement plan, these arrangements typically provide for an advance written election by the executive to defer the receipt of otherwise payable future compensation. However, unlike tax-qualified retirement plans, which by law must generally preclude the distribution of benefits prior to an event such as death, disability, retirement or separation from service with the employer maintaining the plan, many nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements have provided for far greater flexibility as to early access to plan funds. To date, the tax law has permitted nonqualified deferred compensation, along with the attendant deferral of tax revenues for the government, on the theory that it provided a tax-favored mechanism for the accumulation of additional savings for retirement. The implementation of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements providing for distributions upon certain types of arguably foreseeable "hardships" (eg, to pay for college) or in return for a "haircut" forfeiture, cut against the notion that the revenue deferral effect on the government is outweighed by the benefit of permitting the accumulation of additional retirement funds, as these arrangements provide benefits which may not be used for purposes of retirement.
In Search of the Holy Grail
November 29, 2004
Where, as is generally the case, stock of a bankrupt company changes hands upon emergence, the company may undergo an "ownership change" and the use of its net operating losses (NOLs) may be subject to limitation under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This article discusses the loss limitation rules, in general, and one of the special rules under Section 382 of the Code that applies to bankrupt companies, specifically.
Asbestos and Mass Tort Claims
November 29, 2004
Asbestos-related bankruptcies are prevalent for various reasons, including expense of traditional tort litigation, lack of either state or federal procedures to handle mass litigation, disputes between insurer and insured, and need for many companies' creditors and shareholders to achieve certainty with large current and contingent asbestos liabilities. Bankruptcy remains an attractive alternative and sometimes last resort because section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for companies faced with overwhelming asbestos liability to resolve current and future asbestos claims by channeling them to a trust, thereby allowing the effected company to avoid what could result in an inevitable liquidation. One necessary component of this channeling mechanism is section 524(g)(4)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code which requires the Bankruptcy Court appoint "a legal representative for the purpose of protecting the rights of persons that might subsequently assert [asbestos claims] ..." 11 U.S.C. ' 524(g)(4)(B)(i), commonly referred to as a future claimants' representative (FCR).
New! Same Sex Partnership Law Report
November 18, 2004
There's a battle raging in local, state and federal legislative bodies and courts,You know the issue. You deal with it every day. Now, get the clarity you need tohelp your clients keep and gain their rights.<br>
<i>Goodridge</i> Decision Spawns Action
November 16, 2004
Although the average American might feel that the reality of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts materialized overnight, activists who have worked on the issue say that the <i>Goodridge</i> decision by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in November 2003 was not a complete surprise. <i>Goodridge</i> was the result of a well-planned, long-term strategy by same-sex marriage proponents to bring the issue into the legal, cultural, and political mainstream.
