Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Blog Post

February 15, 2017

Employers Should Proceed With Care if Employees Participate in a Proposed Nationwide Strike on February 17 Against the Policies of President Trump

A proposed, 24-hour general strike against President Trump’s policies has attracted considerable attention across the country and may pose risks for employers under the National Labor Relations Act.

Several groups have called for a strike on Friday, February 17, 2017, leading to the potential for employees leaving scheduled work to participate in the protest. Although employers may consider disciplining employees with unexcused absences, the walkouts could be considered protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). In brief, under section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to threaten employees with adverse consequences or discipline employees if the employees engage in protected activity. As a general matter, activity is considered protected if it concerns employees’ interests as employees.

Just last month, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision against an employer for disciplining employees who participated in a one-day strike stemming from a nationwide campaign to raise the minimum wage for fast food workers. EYM King of Mo., 365 NLRB No. 16 (January 24, 2017). Although the strike in EYM King of Mo. involved pay issues and more clearly related to the terms and conditions of employment than a general political strike of the nature proposed with respect to President Trump’s policies, employers must consider the fact that at least some of the policies now at issue could implicate the terms and conditions of employment. Employers should therefore exercise considerable caution if confronted with employees walking out on February 17 to participate in the proposed strike.

Featured Media

Alerts

ERISA Forfeiture Lawsuits: Navigating the Emerging Legal Landscape

Alerts

EU Leads the Way on Artificial Intelligence Regulation

Alerts

End of An Era: SCOTUS Overturns Chevron After 40 Years of Deference to Administrative Agencies

Alerts

SCOTUS Rejects Proposed Release of Sackler Family From Purdue Pharma Chapter 11 Plan as Not Permitted by the Bankruptcy Code

Alerts

NYS Appellate Court Reverses and Holds Liability Insurer Owed Duty to Defend to Policyholder in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

Alerts

New York State's Secret Sauce: Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out