Round-up of recent labor cases:

From the Law Office of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine

Despite the Bush NLRB’s hostility to workers’ rights, unions and workers have recently achieved a few important victories in the courts. Three recent cases show what workers can accomplish when they act together.

FedEx case

In a class action filed against Fed Ex in Los Angeles, package delivery drivers claimed that they were entitled to reimbursement for work-related expenses and that the company had incorrectly classified them as "independent contractors."

Although the drivers provided their own trucks, both the trial court and a court of appeal found that drivers were generally subject to the company’s control. FedEx determined "the color of their socks and the style of their hair." Terminal managers could re-configure the drivers’ routes, and the company could decide to discharge a driver at-will, for virtually any reason. This case took several years to resolve and procedures are still underway, but in the meantime the case is a severe setback to FedEx’s "they aren’t employees/they’re independent small business operators" approach to labor relations.

Friendly Cab case

In another decision dealing with the independent-contractor issue, the federal appeals court in San Francisco decided that Oakland taxi cab drivers were "employees" and thus entitled to bargain collectively with the cab company to improve their working conditions.

This case, like the FedEx case, shows that courts will not blindly allow employers to use of the label "independent contractors" as cover to evade laws protecting employees. The cab company claimed that drivers functioned as individual businesses with opportunities to develop their own profits. Drivers claimed that the cab company really exercised substantial control of their work through lease agreements and other rules. The court agreed with the cab drivers, and enforced the NLRB’s order that Friendly Cab must bargain with the East Bay Taxi Drivers Association.

Union Buttons case

In another case before the federal court of appeals, the court sided with a nurses’ union when it struck down a hospital’s rule barring nurses from wearing buttons in protest of staffing conditions at a facility in Spokane, Washington.

Re-affirming prior rulings on the issue, the court dismissed Sacred Heart Medical Center’s claim that the buttons (reading: "RNs Demand Safe Staffing") caused distress to patients and their families. The court ruled that the hospital’s claim was purely speculative and unsupported by evidence of any harm. Accordingly, the court deemed the rule invalid and in violation of federal labor laws.