Yesterday, I tackled the bills floating around the Senate-side of the Connecticut General Assembly,  In today’s post, let’s look at the House side to see what bills are under consideration there:

  • House Bill 5003 is the mirror-image bill of Senate Bill 1 on Paid Family & Medical Leave.  Yesterday’s post gave the highlights, which apply equally to this bill too.
  • Similarly, proposed House Bill 5004 would raise the minimum wage in the state. The details are still to be drafted, but the CBIA has been asking for the raise to $15/hour to be scheduled over multiple years.  Some version of this is very likely to happen; it’s just a matter of timing of increases from the current $10.10 rate.  $15 per hour seems to be the prevailing wisdom.
  • Proposed House Bill 5053 would create a task force to look for employment opportunities for persons recovering from substance abuse. The details are to be drafted by the Labor & Public Employees committee and the bill will be up for discussion at a public hearing on February 14, 2019.
  • Proposed House Bill 5271 would re-introduce requirements that would broaden sexual harassment prevention training for employers.  The details, again, are still lacking but at a press conference last week, several legislators reintroduced a so-called “Time’s Up Act”.  This is definitely going to be subject to negotiation and change. While the 2018 died in session, it seems likely we’ll see something coming up again later this spring.
  • Proposed House Bill 6111 would allow employers to require employees participate in a direct deposit program for paychecks.  This bill is up for a public hearing on February 14, 2019.
  • Proposed House Bill 6113 is one that I don’t think we’ve seen much before. It would prohibit asking about an applicant’s date of birth or date of graduation on employment applications to “reduce age discrimination”.   Many employers have already taken those questions off their job applications to avoid even the impression that age is a consideration in their decisions; this bill would make that more explicit.  A hearing on this bill is set for February 14, 2019 as well — looks to be a busy hearing.
  • Proposed House Bill 6913 would prohibit “certain employees” from being required to sign “unfair” non-compete agreements.  Who those employees are and what terms would be “unfair” is likely to be the subject of the public hearing on this proposed bill on February 14th as well.  Proposed House Bill 6914 would create a similar ban on non-compete agreements for employees below a certain salary threshold.
  • Proposed House Bill 6936 would take a look at deductions for union dues, seemingly in direct response to the Janus decision. The details are still TBD but this is one that still merits an eye on.
  • Proposed House Bill 7043 would dictate certain requirements for lactation rooms in the workplace.  Rooms should be private, should contain or be near a refrigerator, and include access to a power outlet.  The bill also would make employers provide “breastfeeding support” for up to three years after childbirth.  The details of this bill are still TBD and this bill will be up for discussion at the February 14th hearing.  

To be clear, these are only the list of bills coming out of the Labor & Public Employees committee.  Each year, bills from other committees (including Judiciary) also have a tendency to impact employers.  There is plenty for employers to keep an eye on this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Janus v. AFSCME (download here) reversed 40 years of labor law precedent and concluded that  requiring public employees to pay “agency fees” for labor unions that they don’t want to belong to violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Previously, prior cases have banned forcing public sector employees from joining a union and paying union dues. But a number of states permitted union contracts that required employees to still pay an “agency fee” to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

In its 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this — leaving public sector unions, particularly in states like Connecticut, to potentially lose significant funds from employees who say that they want no part of their salary to go towards unions.

Given that this blog covers more employment law than labor law, and focuses more on private-sector than public sector, I’m not going to do a deep-dive today into the case. The SCOTUSBlog is one good resource. 

But my labor law colleagues at my firm have spending the morning looking into this.  Here’s the quick recap posted this morning on the Employment Law Letter blog and the impact to Connecticut public-sector employers.:

The immediate effect of the Court’s decision is that agency fee (or “fair share” fee) provisions in collective bargaining agreements are invalid. The Court specifically states that agency fees and similar payments may not be deducted from an employee’s pay unless the employee has expressly consented to the deduction.

This statement suggests that employers should stop deducting agency fees unless and until an employee has affirmatively consented.

Because Connecticut law requires express employee consent for payroll deductions, Connecticut public sector employees have likely already consented to the deduction of agency fees.

However, public sector employers should be prepared for employees approaching them and requesting that the agency fee deductions be stopped, effectively withdrawing their consent.

Justice Alito’s decision is emphatic in this point and the significant dollars at stake:

We recognize that the loss of payments from nonmembers may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members. But we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Watch my firm’s blog for more details on this critical decision in the public-sector.