Earlier, We blogged about how employers and the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) are working together to educate eligible employees about the federal and state benefits available to military veterans.

A group of California business organizations launched a new website to help California businesses understand their obligations under the dense and complex Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Health Law Guide for Business is designed to provide accurate and easy to understand information on federal health care reform. The website’s motto is “2,409 pages. One simple web site.”

At the request of the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Supreme Court ordered a review of a trial court decision to clarify whether rounding employees’ time card entries is legal.  

Previously, CalChamber urged the 4th District Court of Appeal to grant a petition by See’s Candy Shops, Inc. to review a San Diego County Superior Court decision that the practice of rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes violates California law.

Employers have long relied on the position of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement that rounding is a lawful practice, the CalChamber said in its October letter to the 4th District Court of Appeal, and that approval is reflected in DOL regulations and the California Labor Commissioner’s enforcement policy, which follows the DOL regulations.

The issue of rounding time card entries is a matter of widespread concern to California employers, and the CalChamber regularly receives inquiries from its members concerning the rounding of time card entries. 

Some class action lawsuits already have been filed in California by plaintiffs alleging that rounding is illegal and seeking damages and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Many employers will feel they have no choice but to stop their practice of rounding time to avoid the risk of class litigation.

After extensive research, the CalChamber concluded that the California Labor Code does not prohibit rounding and no California appellate decision has held that rounding is illegal. The CalChamber believes it would be best for this issue to be resolved now so California businesses will have certainty regarding this important timekeeping issue.

In 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) increased its oversight activity relating to employer disciplinary actions for social media postings made by employees. HR Watchdog blogged frequently in 2011 on the NLRB’s activity in this area. 

Yesterday, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued its second report describing 14 social media cases reviewed by its office. The NLRB’s first report on 14 other social media cases was released in August, 2011. 

The purpose of this second report, as stated by the NLRB, is to provide further guidance to labor and employment law practitioners and HR professionals — many of whom grapple with how to handle employees who use social media to air workplace complaints or simply bad-mouth the company. 

Seven of these 14 cases involve questions about an employer’s social media policies. Five of the social media policies were found to be overly broad and unlawful. 

The problem occurs when a social media is written so broadly that it prohibits employees from discussing wages or working conditions. Employees, in both union and nonunion workplaces, have the right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activities, including discussing working conditions, pay or other work-related issues. 

If those discussions occur using social media accounts (such as an employee’s Facebook or Twitter account), the discussions may be protected under the NLRA.

The NLRB also stated that it intends to develop a practice of tracking all social media cases and developing a consistent approach. The Acting General counsel asked all regional offices to send cases which they believe to be meritorious to the NLRB’s Division of Advice in Washington, D.C.

The NLRB noted that its report represents its “interpretation” of the NLRA as it applies to social media communications and that some of these decisions are currently pending before the Board. The Board’s eventual determinations in those pending cases will provide further guidance as the law develops.

As CalChamber members know, a new state law that took effect January 1, 2012, requires employers to provide nonexempt employees with a notice at the time of hire containing specified wage information. 

Employers have had many questions regarding putting the new notice into practice and how to comply with the law. Employers sought guidance on several issues, including:

Californiaemployers are working with the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to help employees who are veterans take advantage of the state and federal benefits they have earned through military service.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced in late November that it received enough H-1B petitions for fiscal year (FY) 2012 to reach the H1-B statutory cap of 65,000.

November 22, 2011, was the final receipt date for new H-1B specialty occupation petitions requesting an employment start date in FY 2012. Any H-1B petitions filed after that date will be rejected. USCIS looks at the date the petition was actually physically received by USCIS, not the date of the postmark.

This announcement only affects petitions that are subject to the annual cap. USCIS will continue to accept and process petitions filed to:

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted today to proceed with a controversial election rule despite strong dissent from one member of the board. In a 2-1 vote, Chairman Mark Pearce and Board Member Craig Becker voted to advance the proposal while member Mark Hayes voted no. 

Rumors swirled earlier this week that Hayes might resign or refuse to participate in the vote, leaving the NLRB without the quorum it needs to make major rule changes. However, Hayes said that he did not intend to resign even though he strongly opposes the rule.

Yesterday, Pearce made changes to the proposed rule. Only the revised proposal was approved today, but this revised proposal retains significant portions of the original proposal — portions that remain troubling to businesses. The NLRB vote advanced changes that would eliminate most pre-election challenges and move them to after the workers’ vote and would limit litigation surrounding union elections. Pre-election appeals would no longer be allowed which would speed up the election process.

The NLRB will now draft a final rule which will have to be voted on again. Board Member Becker’s appointment expires at the end of the year, which will bring the NLRB down to two members and without a necessary quorum. The NLRB will have to try and get this rule through to a vote prior that time.

Several provisions of the original proposal were not up for vote today, including provisions that would have: (1) required employers to provide the union with email addresses of employees, (2) required parties to identify issues and describe evidence soon after an election petition is filed, no later than the start of the hearing and prior to any other evidence being accepted; and (3) required that hearings be set for seven days after service of the notice of hearing. These items are still up for consideration for later action.

In dissent, Hayes argued that the NLRB should not proceed with the vote given the significance of the proposed changes.

“I deeply believe that whatever one’s view of the need for election rule revisions may be, a final rule should not be issued in the absence of three affirmative votes to do so,” Hayes said.