The Nationwide Labor Relations Board (NLRB) upheld an administrative legislation decide’s (ALJ) ruling directing that an unfair labor follow trial be carried out by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. William Beaumont Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 9 (Aug. 13, 2020). This determination could have broad impact even after COVID-19 issues have handed.
In-person testimony has been the usual for NLRB proceedings. Up to now, in comparatively uncommon cases, the NLRB has permitted distant testimony in illustration case (instances involving elections) hearings, however phone or video testimony in an unfair labor follow trial (one during which it’s alleged a celebration violated the [National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)] has been rare (though NLRB guidelines allow it below “compelling circumstances”).
Illustration case hearings are thought of by the NLRB to be non-adversarial – for the aim of “fact-gathering.” However, unfair labor follow trials require a cautious evaluation of conflicting proof and testimony by the ALJ. It typically is claimed the NLRB doesn’t make “credibility resolutions” in illustration case hearings, whereas assessing witness credibility is crucial in an unfair labor follow trial. Viewing testimony in-person greatest permits the decide to watch witnesses’ demeanor, in addition to something inside view of the witness, together with counsel and the events.
In at this time’s pandemic period, illustration case hearings are routinely carried out remotely. Nonetheless, the issues over video unfair labor follow trials stay. Previous to a trial not too long ago scheduled to be heard by videoconference, an employer requested a delay to permit an in-person continuing. The employer cited an NLRB rule offering events have “the best to seem at a listening to in individual, by counsel, or by different consultant.” Additional, the corporate cited a litany of issues arising from the usage of video, involving credibility, technological points, sharing and reviewing proof, difficulties in cross-examination, and extra.
The ALJ denied the request and the employer appealed to the NLRB, which upheld the ALJ.
In William Beaumont, the NLRB held that, though COVID-19 issues had been considerably decreased, it’s throughout the ALJ’s discretion to rule that the pandemic nonetheless amounted to “compelling circumstances” permitting use of video. Additional, the ALJ didn’t abuse his discretion by not delaying the trial, as a result of, at the moment, the delay could possibly be “indefinite.” Lastly, the NLRB held that the employer’s issues had been speculative – and that every challenge could possibly be addressed at trial, earlier than the ALJ, or by post-decision appeals. Considerably, the NLRB held the “proper to seem” cited by the employer merely means “the best to seem at a listening to in any respect, not the best to be bodily current.”
This determination possible might be cited to assist videoconference unfair labor follow trials in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the choice’s broad studying of ALJs’ discretion could augur larger use of video trials, even post-pandemic.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020Nationwide Legislation Assessment, Quantity X, Quantity 230