A Pharmacy Guild-related non-mystery:
A Pharmacy Guild co-founder, Shane Jerominski, recently took to his “Accidental Pharmacist” Facebook page with a telling revelation. Recently, he “almost got a normal pharmacist job again,” which suggests that he was scoping out chain pharmacies that he has a habit of regularly trashing.
Well, Jerominski went through the interview phases and received an offer that was later rescinded, and he theorized that since “this company is partially unionized,” maybe “they figured hiring me might inspire the rest of their locations to organize.” He further imagined it could be related to a “public letter of reprimand” housed by the Board of Pharmacy website, although he insists that “I had nothing to do with those issues.”
Ultimately, Jerominski didn’t reveal where that offer came from, but it sounds like he’s sticking with his indie pharmacy job, and perhaps his next stand-up comedy show will include more theories on why he wasn’t hired by a company that he likely railed against. This sounds like a common sense decision on an employer’s part, regardless of whether any union discussion was involved.
The UAW monitor’s newest report is impeccably timed:
Earlier this week, we looked at union President Shawn Fain’s most prominent challenger, Rich Boyer, who revealed that Fain won’t talk to him after federal monitor Neil Barofsky ordered Boyer’s reinstatement. Well, Barofsky just dropped his latest report, which happens to detail his investigative findings about Fain’s removal of Boyer after he refused to approve questionable spending requests tied to Fain’s fiancée.
The new 51-page report leaves no doubt from Barofsky that Fain’s removal of Boyer was not only “retaliatory” but part of Fain’s “pattern” of retaliatory conduct “that should be familiar” (to the U.S. district court in Michigan that’s receiving these reports) since this dismissal is similar to Fain’s retaliatory conduct in ousting Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock. In other words, this isn’t over for Fain as he attempts to cruise through union election season. We have our popcorn ready for more.
Meanwhile, the other Sean is having a better month:
What happens in Vegas with the Teamsters, did not stay in Vegas. Last week, Sean O’Brien secured enough delegate support to remain union president without an election. While in Sin City, O’Brien spoke with the New York Times about the union’s recent proposal to the Justice Department for ending their government monitoring after 35 years.
O’Brien brushed off talk of his union’s previous mob ties while calling himself “an alpha personality” but insisted, “I do have a tremendous amount of integrity.” He also believes that his reelection is evidence of his “inclusive and transparent” treatment of union members, but this likely has more to do with O’Brien managing to sway some GOP senators into supporting the Faster Labor Contracts Act.
O’Brien is benefiting from that “celebrity”-type attention now, but if the FLCA passes in the Senate, workers will find out that putting contracts in the hands of arbitrators is good for no one, other than Sean O’Brien.
An ongoing push for gig driver unionization in California:
Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that gave 800,000 rideshare drivers a path to unionize. The effort to organize gig drivers went quicker in Minnesota, where the Machinists and SEIU recently announced their so-called “App Drivers union,” which won’t change the drivers’ classification as independent contractors but will push them into life under a union constitution. How long that lasts before these drivers feel buyers’ remorse remains to be seen, but the California effort persists.
The SEIU-affiliated California Gig Workers’ Union has reached 10% support of active drivers in the state, and if they reach 30%, then the organization can petition California’s Public Employee Relations Board to certify the union without winning election. As Littler attorney Alex MacDonald recently pointed out about the Minnesota-based union, the term “active driver” is dicey and something that unions are allowed to work to their advantage in these states and tie drivers into membership without gaining nearly as much support as the unions claim.
Somehow, there’s more Sixth Circuit news on Cemex:
There’s little doubt that the Abruzzo-era’s draconian Cemex decision will be overturned by the NLRB after James Macy is confirmed as the third GOP member. However, it might be a while before that happens because a relevant case will need to come before the Board, and until that time, Cemex cases are still bouncing around federal appeals courts.
This week, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Board’s petition for an en banc hearing following the court’s finding that the NLRB should have engaged in notice-and-comment rulemaking when pursuing its Cemex framework for bargaining orders. Instead, as the Sixth Circuit found, the Abruzzo-era Board “exceeded its adjudicatory authority” while putting a punitive standard into place against employers. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit declined to enforce a Cemex bargaining order.
A court declining to enforce bargaining orders is a positive result for employers. Yet buried in this discussion is how the current NLRB–as revealed in its en banc petition to the Sixth Circuit–is concerned that Cemex pushback could lead to the Board being confined only to notice-and-comment rulemaking. To that point, the Board argued that the Sixth Circuit majority opinion is “improperly impinging on the Board’s adjudicative authority, the primary procedure it uses to announce policies under the” NLRA. That was also the argument taken by the Sixth Circuit dissent.
This is getting tricky for the Board. Granted, placing clearer limits on the Board’s ability to adjudicate would also be a positive outcome for employers with a left-leaning Board. However, the current Board has taken a more business-friendly stance, so right now, there’s not much danger of these members going rogue against employers like the Abruzzo board did.
Ultimately, Cemex has led to a circuit split and consequences for the Board that stretch well beyond the issue of bargaining orders. The Board is also seeing its very existence questioned by other court cases, so it’s safe to say that the current NLRB members are having some headaches. And overall, the Abruzzo Board’s legacy sure is a messy one.
