Scabby Survives Another Trip to the NLRB: Board Reaffirms Rat-and-Banner Displays Targeting Neutral Businesses Are Permissible

Photo of John BolestaPhoto of Keahn MorrisPhoto of Myles Moran*By John Bolesta, Keahn Morris and Myles Moran* on Posted in Other, Recent Cases

On July 21, 2021, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) issued a 3-1 decision affirming its precedent that displaying banners and a large inflatable rat (“Scabby the Rat”) near neutral employers does not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”).  This decision may come as a disappointment to many employers as the NLRB under the Trump administration had been making efforts to end what many felt was unlawful secondary picketing under the Act.

Continue Reading

Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

Photo of Jodi SteinPhoto of Jennifer Dickson*By Jodi Stein and Jennifer Dickson* on Posted in Recent Cases

Not your average game of patty-cake! Earlier this week, New York’s  First Department, Appellate Division issued its decision related to 200 Amsterdam,[1] overturning the lower court’s decision which would have required 200 Amsterdam to remove several floors of its building in order to comply with zoning.  The lower court determined that the NYC Zoning Resolution did not permit a developer to utilize a portion of a tax lot to merge with a neighboring zoning lot. Continue Reading

Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

Photo of Candace MatsonBy Candace Matson on Posted in Arbitration and Mediation, Construction Claims and Litigation, Design and Construction Defects, Infrastructure, Licensing, Public Works, Recent Cases

Contractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”).  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065.  Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company.  Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work.  Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991). Continue Reading

California Construction in the Time of Covid-19

Photo of Erinn ContrerasPhoto of Suzanne StaffordBy Erinn Contreras and Suzanne Stafford on Posted in Other

Amidst the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, daily and sometimes hourly changes in federal, state, and local orders and regulations are significantly impacting the construction industry.  This blog provides an overview of practical issues to consider related to your California construction projects in light of the ever-changing landscape. Continue Reading

Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

Photo of Aimee Cook OlesonBy Aimee Cook Oleson on Posted in Indemnity

Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Continue Reading

Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

Photo of Keahn MorrisPhoto of John BolestaPhoto of James HaysBy Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays on Posted in Labor and Employment Issues

In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. Continue Reading

Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

Photo of John BolestaPhoto of Keahn MorrisBy John Bolesta and Keahn Morris on Posted in Labor and Employment Issues

It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer.  This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA.  But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site.  In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s  attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. Continue Reading

EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

Photo of Hwan KimBy Hwan Kim on Posted in Construction Claims and Litigation, Design and Construction Defects, Design-Build and Public Private Partnerships, Infrastructure, Mechanic's Liens, Bonds and Stop Notices, Public Works

A recent California case may force engineering, procurement and construction companies doing business with foreign suppliers to reconsider—and maybe rewrite—their contracts. In Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd., the California Court of Appeal held that parties may not contract around the formal service requirements of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, commonly referred to as the Hague Service Convention. The decision could have profound implications for international business. Continue Reading

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

Photo of Erinn ContrerasPhoto of Joy O. SiuBy Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu on Posted in Construction Claims and Litigation, Recent Cases

On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Continue Reading

LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree