Rather than file a grievance through the Union, the plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging claims for (1) breach of contract because she was fired without just cause; and (2) violation of the the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”) because her termination was cause by her use of workers’ compensation.  At trial, the jury ruled against the plaintiff on the REDA claim, but found in her favor on the contract claims and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court vacated the verdict because the contract claims were legally barred.  “When an employee’s claim is firmly rooted in a breach of a collective bargaining agreement and asserts no rights independent of that agreement, such claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).”  (The RLA governs unions in the airline industry.)  In other words, when an employee wants to challenge her termination as unlawful under a CBA, she usually must pursue the matter through the CBA’s grievance mechanism instead of in court.  As this plaintiff did that, the breach of contract claims were legally barred, and the verdict had to be vacated.

In the second case, Stone v. Instrumentation Labratory Company, the Court clarified how employees may pursue retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides employees of publicly traded companies with whistleblower protection, prohibiting employers from terminating, or otherwise retaliating against, such employees when they report “potentially unlawful conduct” that has occurred or is in progress.  The unlawful conduct is often securities fraud or other types of fraud, including making misrepresentations to shareholders.  To pursue a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must first file a complaint with the Department of Labor (which is handled by its OSHA office), and if no final decision is issued in 180 days, the plaintiff may file an action in federal district court.  The Court reaffirmed this procedure, and held that the district court improperly failed to hear a properly filed retaliation action.

In the third case, Alton H. Piester, LLC v. NLRB, the Court upheld the NLRB’s determination that the employer had committed unfair labor practices by (1) impliedly threatening to discharge its employees if they continued to engage in protected, concerted activity — objecting as a group to a change in pay policies — and (2) by impliedly threatening to discharge and then actually discharging an employee for continuing to engage in similar protected, concerted activity.  The majority of the Court concluded that the Board’s decision on both unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence.

• 68 percent of the workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week, including failures to pay earned wages, at least minimum wage, or overtime pay.
• 26 percent of the workers had been paid less than the minimum wage the week before being surveyed and that one in seven had worked off the clock the previous week.
• 76 percent of those who had worked overtime the week before were not paid their proper overtime.
• Of workers who receive tips, 12 percent said their employer had stolen some of the tips.
• One in five workers reported having lodged a complaint about wages to their employer or trying to form a union in the previous year, and 43 percent of them said they had experienced some form of illegal retaliation, like firing or suspension.
• Employers  pressured workers not to file for workers’ compensation, so that only 8 percent of those who suffered serious injuries on the job filed for compensation to pay for medical care and missed days at work stemming from those injuries.
• In instances when workers’ compensation should have been used, one third of workers injured on the job paid the bills for treatment out of their own pocket and 22 percent used their health insurance.
• Workers’ compensation insurance paid medical expenses for only 6 percent of the injured workers surveyed.