California’s presidential primary election will happen on June 5, 2012. Your employees may be entitled to time off for voting.

If an employee does not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote in a statewide election, the employee may, without loss of pay, take off up to two hours of working time to vote.

The time off must be taken at the beginning or end of the regular working shift, whichever allows the most free time for voting and the least time off from working, unless otherwise mutually agreed. The employee must notify you at least two working days in advance to arrange a voting time.

In addition, employees may serve as election officials on election day without being disciplined, but you are not required to pay them for these absences.

A San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) company employee filed a lawsuit against SDG&E after she was fired because of her Facebook post about a customer. Did SDG&E do anything wrong?

The issue of whether an employer can discipline an employee for his/her Facebook posts has received plenty of attention in the national press. HR Informant previously reported on the National Labor Relations Board’s activity in this area.

If an employee discusses working conditions on his/her Facebook page, that activity may be protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Under Section 7, employees in both union and nonunion workplaces have the right to engage in concerted activities, including discussing working conditions, pay or other work-related issues.

In 2011, the NLRB acted against several employers when those employers disciplined employees for work-related comments on Facebook.

In San Diego, the SDG&E employee said she was fired after allegedly posting a comment on a co-worker’s Facebook page about a customer and using the customer’s first and last name. According to the employee, SDG&E told her she was fired because her Facebook post violated the company’s customer privacy policy.

The SDG&E employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the alleged violation of the company’s customer privacy policy is not the real reason for the termination. The lawsuit alleges that the firing has a discriminatory motive.

Though employees may not be fired for an unlawful reason, such as engaging in protected activities, employers still have the right to set and enforce policies protecting the privacy rights of their employees and their customers. It is a balancing act with competing interests: the company’s right to protect proprietary information and obligation to protect customer privacy, and employees’ rights to discuss working conditions.

With the ever-changing landscape, employers should carefully craft their social media policies.  Employers may also want to consult with counsel before terminating an employee for conduct involving social media.

Considering the importance of sales to any small business, you don’t want to improvise when it comes to hiring salespeople, says Jim Dunn, a sales training expert for Whetstone Group, and co-author of the e-bookCommon Sense Selling: A New Look at How Successful Salespeople Sell. “If you don’t have guidelines in place, you’ll be winging it, with predictably poor results.”

“Small-business owner” and “weeklong vacation” may sound like phrases that don’t belong in the same sentence. After all, running asmall business is a full-time (plus overtime) commitment. Taking a break, however, may be just what you need to stay energized and healthy and to keep your business on the right track.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released an online chart that allows you to view the number and types of workplace discrimination charges by state.  

The EEOC’s previous database allowed viewing only of the nationwide totals. The new chart contains statewide figures for fiscal years 2009-2011. 

California had 7,166 total charges in fiscal year 2011 which represents 7.2 percent of the nationwide total. Only Texas (10 percent) and Florida (8.1 percent) ranked higher in terms of percentage of nationwide claims. These figures are not surprising given the large populations of these states. 

By an overwhelming majority, retaliation is the number one EEOC charge filed in California, constituting 44.6 percent of all EEOC charges filed in the state. Retaliation charges were followed by race (33.1 percent), disability (29.4 percent) and age (25 percent). 

The state statistics mimic a nationwide trend. For two years in a row, retaliation has been the number one type of EEOC charge filed throughout the United States. 

These types of claims should be of real concern for employers. Employees have the right to complain of unlawful discriminatory or harassing treatment in the workplace. Retaliation takes many forms and includes adverse employment actions, such as demotions or terminations, following complaints of unlawful conduct. Subtle forms of retaliation, such as ostracism, may not be unlawful but can create morale problems and decreased productivity. 

A federal district court ruled that the Department of Labor (DOL) may not implement a final rule relating to H-2B visas. The H-2B non-agricultural temporary worker program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals into the U.S. to fill temporary non-agricultural jobs.

HR Informant previously reported on the DOL’s controversial final rule that revised the processes that employers must follow when obtaining a temporary labor certification from the DOL and when petitioning the Department of Homeland Security to employ a non-immigrant worker in H-2B status.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the winning party in meal and rest break cases cannot recover attorneys’ fees. In a unanimous decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the court ruled that neither employees nor employers who prevail can receive an attorneys’ fees award.  

A federal court for the District of Columbia ruled yesterday that the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new election rule is invalid. The court held that the NLRB did not properly adopt the controversial new rule, sometimes referred to as the “ambush election rule.”

The court found that the NLRB lacked the necessary quorum when it voted on the rule. Under federal law, a vote is valid if there is a quorum of at least three members voting on the rule. At the time the rule was adopted, the five-member board had three members, and only two of the three members voted on the rule. One member, Brian Hayes, expressed his opposition in a public hearing but did not actually participate in the vote. 

In response to the court’s decision, the NLRB announced that it suspended the implementation of the new rule and elections will proceed under the old rule.

According to the NLRB, about 150 election petitions were filed under the new rule. Many of those petitions resulted in election agreements and several have gone to hearing. The NLRB will contact all parties involved in the 150 cases and “provide them the opportunity to continue processing the case from its current posture rather than re-initiating the case under the prior procedure.” 

Cal/OSHA launched its 2012 heat illness campaign aimed at preventing worker deaths and illnesses due to heat exposure at outdoor workplaces.

Cal/OSHA already started inspections in California to ensure compliance with the heat illness prevention standard, and will conduct coordinated inspections across the state throughout the summer.

Cal/OSHA will also team with employer and worker organizations to educate workers about heat illness prevention. Cal/OSHA will continue its ongoing outreach efforts and engage in an extensive multilingual media campaign to remind workers and employers of their obligations.

Cal/OSHA will also provide statewide heat illness prevention training. Training dates are available from May through September. For more information about Cal/OSHA training, visit Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness web page.

In 2005, California became the first state in the nation to adopt heat illness regulations on an emergency basis. The regulations became permanent in 2006. 

In 2010, the regulations were strengthened to include a high heat provision applicable to five industries:  agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and transportation/delivery of agricultural products.