Providers could find themselves paying heftier fines in 2023 for labor law violations.

Under a December ruling by the National Labor Relations Board, employers are responsible for paying workers affected by the direct consequences of unfair labor practices, including preventing workers from unionizing.

“Employers need to understand that the cost of violating the [National Labor Relations Act] could be much higher than it was before this ruling. That reality should inform a lot of decision-making when it comes to taking disciplinary action, including discharging employees,” attorney Dan Altchek of Saul Ewing in Baltimore told the Society for Human Resource Management. “Employers will need to give more serious consideration to the risk of committing a violation because the magnitude of that risk is now much greater.”

Previously, the NLRB required employers to reimburse employees who were deemed to have been unfairly discharged, laid off or otherwise discriminated against for their actual economic losses, such as reinstating employment, back pay, payment of dues and fines, stopping unlawful rules or practices, or a notice posted at the workplace.

Now, the penalties could be more severe, according to SHRM. 

“That means the board is going to start going after employers for things like credit card interest, late fees and early withdrawal penalties,” attorney Grant Pecor with Barnes & Thornburg in Grand Rapids, MI, told SHRM. “If an individual can show they lost their car or home because they could no longer afford to make payments, the employer involved may be on the hook for the cost of a replacement.”

According to SHRM, examples of labor law violations include:

  • Discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union.
  • Refusing to reinstate employees when jobs they are qualified for are open because they took part in a union’s strike.
  • Demoting employees because they circulated a union petition among other employees asking the employer for an increase in pay.
  • Discontinuing an operation at one plant and discharging the employees involved, then opening the same operation at another plant with new employees because the employees at the first plant joined a union.
  • Refusing to hire qualified applicants for jobs because they belong to a union.

On this year’s regulatory agenda, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is diligently reviewing  overtime regulations, “which implement the exemption of bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements,” Littler reported. 

Employers could also find themselves in hot water once the NLRB’s proposed “joint employer” rule is finalized this summer. 

“Under the expanded NLRB standard, a senior living or care facility that ‘co-determines’ working conditions such as schedules, wages and other benefits with its staffing contractors, therapy or other care-providing vendors should be prepared for the possibility of being found jointly liable for unfair labor practices or responsible to engage in collective bargaining with a union seeking to represent the workers,” attorney Jennifer Long, special counsel at Duane Morris LLP, previously told the McKnight’s Business Daily.