the college of labor & employment lawyers · e. tallent of washington, dc, the late charles a....

The College of Labor &Employment Lawyers

Fall 2008 NewsletterVol. 10 No. 2

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

President’s Perspective 4

Video History Project 5 Continues Its Mission

Winners of 1st Law School 5 Writing Competition Announced Location Surveillance: 6 A National Labor Relations Act Perspective

Article Commentary 9

Geopolitical Tracking of Work 10 Makes Sense, and Non-Work Outside Lawful Activities Generally Are of Little Interest to Employers

Comment on: Location 12 Surveillance in the Employment Context and the Right to Privacy

Errata - Bill Murphy Article 14

Spotlight on Fellows 15 Harvey Adelstein, Gerald Golden and Howard Bernstein Edwin S. Hopson Louis B. Kushner Gary L. Leiber and Edward R. Levin D. Patton Pelfry Catherine Hagen Pepe Tod Schleier

The Nine: Inside the Secret 16 World of the Supreme CourtA Book Review

MILE HIGH MOMENT – FELLOWS CELEBRATE NEW INDUCTEES IN DENVER

It is always a wonderful occasion when the ranks of the College gather for the annual banquet. This year was the 13th Annual Induction Celebration, and new “heights” were achieved by

the Fellows who gathered under the twinkling stars (artificial) of the Donald R. Seawell Ballroom at the Denver Center for the Perform-ing Arts. Each year’s event seems to carry a signature note (e.g.: the swaying overhead palms in Hawaii or the clanking of the cable cars in San Francisco) and on this occasion it was the magnificent pan-oramic view of the dramatic sunset behind the Rocky Mountains. That sight was further enhanced by the fact that the wall of ceiling to floor windows was directly behind the bar – a popular place to stand (for viewing purposes, of course). The principal purposes of the gathering are to install the class of new Fellows and to create a sense of camaraderie among the College Fellows who travel from almost every state to take part in the evening’s activities. This year witnessed the induction of sixty-three Fellows from the Classes of 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The new members quickly got into the spirit(s) of the evening associated with the elevated setting for the dinner party. Gary Bailey (Winter Springs, Illinois) admitted to this reporter that he hadn’t been this “high” in years, and Ron Meyer (Tallahassee, Florida) suggested that the return trip home would be a “downer.” Dick O’Conner (Hartford, Connecticut), Joe Fleming (Miami, Florida), Mark Risk (New York, New York) and Jules Crystal (Chicago, Illinois) agreed with one another that this was the “high”-light of their professional careers.

In fulfilling the purpose of this gathering, there was serious business to address and that was deftly-handled by the College Officers. President Lonny Dolin (Rochester, New York) delivered an inspirational keynote address entitled, “The Road to Fellowship – Character, Integrity, Professional Expertise and Leadership.” Immediate Past President Joel Glanstein (New York, New York) admin-istered the oath of membership to the inductees and accepted a gift for his untiring efforts to build

the College’s programs. The finale of the program was the warm reception offered to the incoming President, Maurice Wexler, (Memphis, Tennessee) and his “first lady”, Alice. Maurice pledged to take the College to new heights – a promise which was greeted with some consternation in that the assemblage was already situated 5,280 feet above sea level.

As always, the College membership owes a sincere “thank you” to our small staff whose untiring efforts make this organization function in an efficient and effective manner. Executive Director Susan Wan and her new Assistant,

Jennifer Motley, planned and hosted a delightfully elegant affair which made this mid-September “Mile High” evening one that will be remembered with great fondness.

Don Slesnick Roving College Reporter

ThirTEETh ANNUAL iNDUCTiON DiNNEr

2 Fall 2008

ThirTEETh ANNUAL iNDUCTiON DiNNEr

The College of Labor & Employment Lawyers 3

Photos courtesy of Jeannett Slesnick

4 Fall 2008

A PrESiDENT’S PErSPECTiVE from Lonny h. Dolin

As President of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers it has been my pleasure to serve in such an auspicious capacity at such an important time in the College’s life. I thought it important

to give you all a brief history of the College and an overview of where we plan to be as an honorary organization within the next few years.

First, we are a very young organization. It was just thirteen years ago that three lawyers, Stephen E. Tallent of Washington, DC, the late Charles A. (“Butch”) Powell, III of Birmingham, Alabama and Don MacDonald of Denver, Colorado came up with the idea of establishing a College to pro-mote achievement, advancement and excellence in the practice of labor and employment law within four major constituencies: management lawyers, primarily representing employers (both as in-house and outside counsel); union lawyers, primarily representing unions (both as in-house and outside counsel); neutrals, who are government officials, arbitrators or scholars, and plaintiff ’s lawyers, who represent individual employees. These three individuals laid the foundation for the College.

Under the direction of our Board of Governors and Executive Director, Susan Wan, the College has grown from an idea to an active, thriving organization made up of almost one thousand Fellows. We now operate under a strong set of by-laws and have well thought out guidelines for nominations and credentialing by thirteen hard working credentials committees. Further, the College publishes a newsletter, produces a historically important video history project, sponsors an annual writing com-petition for law students and organizes a growing number of regional meetings.

This year, the Board of Governors agreed that the College can and should be something more in light of its intellectual strength, professional expertise and highly respected and influential roster of proven leaders. In furtherance of this goal, the Board, with the help of a nationally recognized consul-tant, Marc Romano of Ignyte, re-evaluated what the intention and purpose of the College should be. We decided that it was time to move beyond the College’s current status as an elite social club. After much work, we concluded that to remain viable the College must:

• Make Fellowship an opportunity to collaborate with the best minds in our profession with the goal of achieving positive change and ongoing contributions to the betterment of our profession;

• Provide a vehicle that encourages Fellows to make significant contributions to our profession at both the national and regional level; allows its members to be recognized for their high level of character, integrity, professional expertise and leadership; motivates fellows to maintain their contributions to scholarship, teaching, lecturing and distinguished published writings; and em-powers the distinct geographical regions of existing fellows to develop a strong network for communication, knowledge share and professional collegiality.

• Create a stronger identity so that Fellowship in the College provides greater experiential, con-tributory and emotional value;

• Create an environment whereby Fellowship participation becomes the next level of personal professional achievement for each of its Fellows.

• Make Fellowship an aspiration for employment law practitioners.

In order to accomplish these ambitious goals, we have set the stage to shift the positioning and perception of the College. Toward that end, this year we have redesigned and added a “brand” driver to our logo that will be articulated in all future forms of College communications. These changes will be rolled out in the beginning of next year. Currently, our consultant, Ignyte, is working on a com-plete re-content and redesign of our web site. The website will be easy-to-use, allow Fellows to develop strong national and regional networks and will facilitate Fellowship communication, knowledge shar-ing and growth. Finally, the Board is also working to increase our National Board membership and to create a new regionally based structure to allow greater regional development and activities.

In conclusion, I am excited about our work this year and look forward to presenting you with our new logo, brand driver, website and new board and regional committee structures. These changes will permit the College to deliver significant new value to it’s membership. Further, I firmly believe that our work this year will best position the College to become the personification of professional ethics, achievement, knowledge and experience directed toward the betterment of the practice and purpose of labor and employment law.

Lonny H. Dolin Rochester, NY


WiNNErS OF LAW STUDENT WriTiNG COMPETiTiON ANNOUNCED

The inaugural College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Law Student Writing Competition received an enthusiastic response from the law student community. The quantity and quality

of the articles submitted exceeded all expectations, and the difficult task of judging the submissions resulted in a first and second place winner and a tie for third place. Congratulations to the following winners!

Sharing third place are: Christopher W. Jacob, a second year law student at Chicago-Kent College of Law, for his article, “The Dialectical Egoism Test: A New Approach to Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,” and Beth Manzullo, a second year law student at the University of Illinois College of Law, for her article, “No Longer Blind to Status Blind Harassment.”

In second place is Ian J. Silverbrand, a May graduate of Cornell Law School, for his article, The Economic Duress of Love Contract Policies.

First place was awarded to Elizabeth Collins Lawnicki, for her article, “Location Surveillance in the Employment Context and the Right to Privacy.” Elizabeth graduated in May from the University of Michigan Law School, where she was a Clarence Darrow Scholar. Prior to law school, she graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science from Case Western Reserve University in Systems and Control Engineering. Elizabeth worked at Intel Corporation in Arizona as a softwear engineer and project manager for five years before leaving for law school. Her primary interest areas are intellectual property and technology law and she plans to live and practice in Chicago, Illinois.

Her article, which accompanies this newsletter, deals with the invasion of privacy issues surrounding the current employers’ use of technology to track their employees both on and off the job. The issue is both timely and relevant and the subject of the Fellows’ articles that follow.

ViDEO hiSTOrY PrOJECT CONTiNUES iTS MiSSiON

The Video History Project has recently completed interviews of former NLRB Chairman Betty Southard Murphy and Marvin Miller, the first Executive Director of the Major League Baseball

Players Association. This brings to fifteen the number of interviews in the College collection.The Project began in 1999, under the leadership of founding Fellow Steve Tallent, and it seeks to

record for posterity the career histories of men and women who have contributed to the development of labor and employment law. The first subject was Howard Jenkins, a four term appointee to the National Labor Relations Board and its first African American Member. Since that interview, lawyers, arbitrators, judges and government officials, who played prominent roles in the development of the law, have been videotaped as part of the project. Brief excerpts of most of the interviews can be seen on the College website. Complete tapes of these interviews are available to researchers through the Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives at Cornell University.

The College has also produced on abbreviated version (17 minutes) of Howard Jenkins’ story that provides an excellent focus on the life and times of a prominent African American labor lawyer and government official. This tape is available to any Fellow and would be ideal for use in speaking to a class about the history of labor and employment law. Career stories can be an excellent incentive to young attorneys to practice our special area of the law.

We are currently working on a film built around the interviews of Willard Wirtz and Bill Usery, both Fellows of the College and former US Secretaries of Labor. Each was the subject of an extensive Video History Project interview and their stories are wonderful examples of public officials committed to workplace justice. The film will be about one hour long and will be available to local television channels as well to history, government and labor relations teachers and professors for use in class. The film is being produced and directed by Carol M. Rosenbaum who is the Producer/Director of the interviews that we tape. Ms. Rosenbaum is the winner of two Emmys and eighteen national awards.

Interviews are videotaped under the direction of Ms. Rosenbaum. Our practice is to have the subjects select their interviewers. Betty Murphy was interviewed by John Higgins, the Chair of the Video History Project, and Marvin Miller was interviewed by Gene Orza, Chief Operating Officer of the Major League Baseball Players.

The Project continues to seek suggestions for subjects for future interviews and for Fellows who would like to get involved in the Project. If you have any ideas for the Project, want to get involved and/or want to contribute to the effort, please contact John Higgins.

6 Fall 2008

LOCATiON SUrVEiLLANCE: A NATiONAL LABOr rELATiONS ACT PErSPECTiVE

By Arthur F. Silbergeld

Mr. Silbergeld was inducted a Fellow in the Class of 2002. A management-side attorney, he practices out of the Los Angeles, California office of Proskauer Rose LLP. He would like to acknowledge the assistance of David Glass, an Associate in the Los Angleles Labor & Employment Practice Group at Proskauer Rose, in writing this article.

New technologies invariably present chal-lenges to existing legal frameworks, and

technology in the workplace is no exception. Employers now have the opportunity, for ex-ample, to use global positioning systems (“GPS”)

and radio frequency identification (“RFID”) to monitor the exact location of their property, off as well as on-premises, and even their employees, in real-time.

As Ms. Lawnicki’s ar-ticle rightly observes, this new form of “location surveillance” provides a

fresh reason to reflect on the balance between employee privacy rights and employers’ legiti-mate business interests. Whether sweeping new federal legislation is needed (or best suited) to respond to these challenges is a worthy question. But in answering it, one should remember that many employees across a wide swatch of manu-facturing and service industries are already pro-tected from a wide range of surveillance activities by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA or “the Act”). The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB or “the Board”) for 73 years has sought to balance the rights of employees with the right of employers to protect their property and run their business. In doing so, the NLRA not only responds to many of the issues raised by GPS and RFID, but also provides a model for future leg-islation.

Congress passed the NLRA in 1935 to guarantee the right of employees to bargain col-lectively with their employer. Today, the Act regulates all aspects of the relationship between employers, unions, and employees, and protects the rights of employees to bargain or act collec-tively outside the union context. Section 7 of the Act establishes that employees have the right to engage, or refrain from engaging, in “protected concerted activity,” and by prohibiting employ-ers from engaging in “unfair labor practices,” which may include violating those rights (an 8(a)

(1) violation, referring to that section of the Act) or discriminating against employees on the basis of exercising those rights (an 8(a)(3) violation).

Although the Board has not yet considered GPS or RFID technology in much detail, it has a well-established juris-prudence regarding em-ployer surveillance that should both guide other lawmakers as a model and reassure employees that in many cases their rights are already well protected. Traditionally, the Board has been con-cerned about employers whopressure employees to refrain from union activity by engaging in co-ercive practices such as threats, interrogations, or, in some circumstances,surveillance. The Board considers that, by “spying” on employees, em-ployers may create an environment in which employees will be restrained in the free exercise of their Section 7 rights. Accordingly, it has de-veloped a sensible set of rules to distinguish le-gitimate surveillance from surveillance that is unlawful.

For example, for more than seventy years the Board has held as a general rule that surveillance of protected concerted activity violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It matters not whether the surveillance is done by supervisors, other employees or outside third parties at the employer’s direction, or whether employees are even aware that they are being watched. Nor does it matter whether the protected concerted activity involved has anything to do with unions or unionization. Because the rights guaranteed by the NLRA apply to non-union as well as union employees, the Board may also find an 8(a)(1) violation when an employer engages in surveillance of nonunion employees if the surveillance tends to interfere with their Section 7 rights.1 The Board has found violations where employers have spied on union organizers, union halls, off-duty employees gathered at breaks, and vehicles entering and leaving union campaign headquarters. The Board has also found violations where an employer photographs or videotapes employees engaged in Section 7 activity—indeed, it presumes this surveillance to be unlawful, and the burden is on the employer

(cont’d. on pg. 7)

Arthur F. Silbergeld

The Board considers that, by “spying” on employees,

employers may create an environment in which

employees will be restrained in the free exercise of their Section 7 rights.


(cont’d. from pg. 6)

to demonstrate otherwise.2

The Board will even find an unfair labor practice where an employer creates the mere impression of surveillance. In one decision, for example, the Board found that an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) simply by aiming a video camera at a building used as union headquarters even though no actual surveillance took place.3 In this circumstance, the Board considered that even the impression of surveillance would have a chilling effect on employees’ exercise of their protected Section 7 rights and, therefore, found it to be an unfair labor practice.

What’s more, the NLRA’s restrictions on surveillance tend to be even greater in the context of an organizing campaign—the several-week period between the filing of a petition for representation and the secret-ballot election that determines whether affected employees want a union to become their bargaining representative. The Board scrutinizes employer conduct more heavily during this period to ensure that “laboratory conditions” are present which guarantee a free and fair election. In this critical period, conduct which might not ordinarily rise to the level of an unfair labor practice may nevertheless be grounds for setting aside election results. The Board has held that during an organizing campaign, employers may not install new video cameras or hire additional security guards to engage in surveillance of union activity—and, again, they may not create even the impression of surveillance by installing nonfunctioning cameras.4 Employers are also largely pro-hibited during this period from instituting any policy changes that would alter employees’ terms and conditions of employ-ment (requiring new uniforms with RFID tags, for example, would likely fall within this prohibition).

Recognizing, however, that employers have many legitimate reasons to engage in surveillance, the Board does not categorically prohibit surveillance in all circumstances. Rather, it will generally find a violation only when the employer cannot demonstrate that its conduct had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business justification. Certainly, numerous legitimate reasons come readily to mind, such as the obvious need of many employers for security guards or security cameras. These measures not only protect company property from theft, but also protect employees themselves by deterring, for example, dangerous criminal activity in parking lots or areas open to the public. Additionally,

the Board recognizes employers have a right to monitor employees via timekeeping systems and other methods to enforce lawful attendance policies and ensure productivity. Of course, any means may be abused if used for improper discriminatory purposes, but by balancing the employer’s business interests and motives against employees’ rights, the Board’s availability to address encroachment on employee rights at least in these contexts minimizes the need for sweeping legislative solutions.

Most employers do not invest in ex-pensive surveillance technology to monitor their employees’ private lives or activities, but rather because they have a legitimate interest in knowing and controlling the whereabouts and appropriate use of valuable company property. With respect to email and internet activity on company computers, the Board has again struck a reasonable balance, holding that employers have a basic property right to regulate and monitor the use of their proprietary systems provided they do not discriminate in doing so. Thus, under the NLRA, an employer may maintain and enforce policies to monitor and restrict the use of company equipment and software to send and receive emails, access the internet, or similar uses, unless those restrictions specifically restrain Section 7 activity or the restraints are applied in a discriminatory manner (i.e., an employer may not permit emails regarding some outside organizations, but prohibit emails regarding unionization).5 Subject to these restrictions, monitoring its employees’ email and internet usage is another legitimate and reasonable form of surveillance.

An employer’s need to monitor com-pany property is even more acute when that property is mobile, such as products in transit, company vehicles, laptops or other expensive equipment. Understanding this, the Board in 2003 considered whether an employer commits an unfair labor practice by installing GPS tracking devices in com-pany trucks operated by employees.6 Here again the Board framed the issue properly: it acknowledged that an employer has a legitimate interest in monitoring its property, but asked whether the employer was motivated primarily by this legitimate interest, or whether it installed these devices with the purpose of spying on union organizing activity. Applying this analysis, the General Counsel recommended issuing a complaint for an 8(a)(1) violation because, in this case, the employer installed the GPS devices only on the trucks driven by two known union


Recognizing, however, that employers have many

legitimate reasons to engage in surveillance, the Board

does not categorically prohibit surveillance in all

circumstances.

8 Fall 2008


organizers. Of course, under different facts the Board might reach a different conclusion, but the important point is that the analysis appropriately recognized that employers have a legitimate interest in monitoring their property, and should be permitted to do so as long as their efforts are not discriminatory. In so framing the question, the NLRA and the Board have struck the proper balance between employee rights and employers’ legitimate business interests.

Ms. Lawnicki’s article also raises concern over many employees’ relatively diminished bargaining position due to their at-will status. It is worth noting this issue is largely moot in the collective bargaining setting, because virtually all collective bargaining agreements provide that employees may not be terminated without “just cause.” Moreover, the Board has held that video surveillance by the employer is a mandatory subject of bargaining, which means the employer may not unilaterally implement such surveillance without first bargaining for it.8 Thus, in a collective bargaining environment, employers may not unilaterally implement a practice of location surveillance. Rather, they will reach an agreement—as Ms. Lawnicki notes UPS and the Teamsters have done—over whether and how GPS, RFID or other tracking systems may or may not be used, or at least bargain over it to the point of impasse.

As new forms of surveillance technology have emerged, the NLRA has been construed to protect employee rights while recognizing employers’ legitimate need to protect their property and run their businesses. Although the Board’s surveill-

ance jurisprudence is focused Section 7 rights, not employee privacy generally, its protections apply to nearly all private sector employees, and create a substantial deterrent against employers who might use surveillance technologies for improper purposes. The Board’s longstanding surveill-ance jurisprudence has proven itself both workable and sound by asking the proper question: not whether employers have the right to monitor their company property, but how this right, which must not be ignored, should be balanced against the rights of employees. In the midst of rapidly changing 21st Century technology, the NLRA provides both substantial protections to employees and a sensible approach for other lawmakers to follow.

1/ NLRB v. Dawson Cabinet Co., 566 F.2d 1079 (8th Cir. 1977) (even in a non-union setting and in the absence of organizing activity, the Regional Director issued a complaint charging the employer with interrogating an employee about protected concerted activities and thus “creating the impression of surveillance”).

2/ Alle-Kiski Med. Ctr., 339 NLRB 361 (2003).

3/ CBS Records Division of CBS, Inc., 223 NLRB 709 (1976).

4/ E.g., Trailermobile Trailer, LLC, 343 NLRB 95 (2004); Parsippany Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

5/ Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007).

6/ NLRB Office of Gen. Counsel Advice Mem. (East Coast Mech. Contractors), No. 22-CA-25324, 2003 NLRB GCM LEXIS 99 (Feb. 26, 2003).

7/ See Colgate-Palmolive Co., 323 NLRB 515 (1997) (finding the installation and use of hidden surveillance cameras in the workplace is a mandatory subject of bargaining).

Ms. Lawnicki’s article also raises concern over

many employees’ relatively diminished bargaining

position due to their at-will status.


COMMENTArY

By Bruce A. Miller

Mr. Miller was inducted a Fellow of the College in 1997. As an activist, advisor and attorney for decades, he practices with the firm of Miller Cohen PLC in Detroit, Michigan.

The article by Ms. Lawnicki certainly deserved an award. I found it well written, fairly

objective and concerned about human values. My point of departure is her discussion of the “market” as a force in dealing with the disparate interests of management and labor.

Trade unions enter the market to protect the rights of working people. But too often there are no trade unions in place to protect them. I remember a discussion that went on some time ago when there was a proposal to limit the employee-at-will doctrine. (Some trade union-ists were against the limitation because it would discourage workers from seeking representation. I was not of that school.)

It is important to soften the impact of the employment at will doctrine. Any effort to do this must include either an explicit or tacit understanding that an employee has a property interest in his job. The law, except possibly in the public sector, does not recognize this.

We are beyond arguing that an employer has a limited interest in protecting and expand-ing productivity. Tracking employees is surely a way to do this. Placing limitations on that right is extremely difficult in the current climate. The question remains, as put in the article, whether the cost to our social value of privacy is too high a price to pay in allowing the employer an unfet-tered right. I think the price is too high.

There is more to a worker than work. Unlike the machines that he operates or the trucks that he drives, he comes to work with his humanity and his sense of pride. That pride, if he is a nor-mal person, extends to his person and to his job. It is the exceptional worker who does not believe in a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.

Protecting that pride of self and work is not easily equated to economic notions of produc-tivity and profit. The market place, not in the sense of the article, is a harsh taskmaster. Com-petition drives employers to do things that they might rather not want to do. And, for others, it is the excuse to wring the last ounce they can from their employees.

Although we may agree that there is a value in living in a decent society, valuing that is not easy. Liberty challenges people to give up their lives but who can put a price on the liberty that caused the human loss. But we all know in our hearts that it is of great value. Maintenance of pride is not possible in a society without liberty.

Focusing as I do on pride of self, one may want to invoke the ancient Hebrew proverb: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”1 I would counter this with a line from Shakespeare: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”

Surveillance not only takes on importance in the labor-management context, it is a matter we all have to deal with in the simple act of boarding an airplane. So the question of what surveillance is to be had depends. It depends on the ends being served by the sur-veillance. A threat against being blown up on an air-plane calls for some loss of pride (although I am proud to be surveilled). A push for productivity that puts a spy alongside of you every day must be weighed against other methods that protect the employers interests, like what he did before tech-nology gave him greater tools, and the effect of the use on the subject of the use. In the absence of unions, there are no market forces in play because there is no countervailing force to that of the owner. But, in a just society, there are interests to protect.

Legislation becomes an issue where the market fails to provide some equity between competing interests. In the absence of union representation, there is nothing in the market that protects the worker. And the market drives employers to meet what other employers who engage in intrusive surveillance are doing. Leg-islation creates an even playing field by setting minimum standards of behavior.

My legislative approach would be to re-quire that the use of a GPS could not be used for disciplinary purposes. The use of this weapon for disciplinary purposes is like permitting hear-say into evidence and requiring a person to be a witness against himself.

The justification of the use of GPS is pro-ductivity. Its use should be limited to its purpose. Employers do not suffer from a lack of means to control their work force without the use of these new weapons. I would also require a showing that the employer has no other reasonable method to get the information provided by GPS, after the employer has proven that this information is es-sential to its operation. I would consider placing the enforcement of the legislation in the hands of the unemployment compensation systems that exist nationwide where there are in place referees and ALJs with some sophistication about the work place. This approach would have the effect of balancing the interests of employers and em-ployees, protecting the person without injuring the employer and taming the market.

1/ Proverbs 16:18

Bruce A. Miller

Surveillance not only takes on importance in the labor-management context, it is a matter we all have to deal with in the simple

act of boarding an airplane.

10 Fall 2008

GEOPOSiTiONAL TrACKiNG OF WOrK MAKES SENSE, AND NON-WOrK, OUTSiDE, LAWFUL ACTiViTiES GENErALLY ArE OF LiTTLE iNTErEST TO EMPLOYErS: A rESPONSE TO ThE LAWNiCKi PAPEr ON “LOCATiON SUrVEiLLANCE iN ThE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT AND ThE riGhT TO PriVACY”

By Jay W. Waks

Mr. Waks, a litigation partner of Kaye Scholer LLP in New York City, is chair of its Employment & Labor Law Practice. He was inducted a Fellow in 2002. Mr. Waks notes that more can be said in defense of geopositional work tracking; but in the interest of brevity, he merely has hit the high points. He also acknowledges with appreciation the contribution to this commentary of Roxanne J. Mintz, a 3L at Northwestern University School of Law.

In “Location Surveil-lance in the Employ-

ment Context and the Right to Privacy”, Eliza-beth Collins Lawnicki highlights the growing interest in geopositional tracking (that Lawnicki calls “surveillance”). As geopositional and other e-technology advances,

an individual’s once-private information is ever more universally available, including to that person’s employer. This is especially true when e-technology converges with business needs.

There is no question that GPS, RFID, mobile phone tracking and other geopositional technologies are representative of this conver-gence. These technologies provide businesses with an opportunity to boost productivity by in-creasing efficiency and eliminating waste. There also is little doubt that their use leads to more focused tracking of employees, whether inciden-tal or deliberate, but not necessarily misuse.

Lawnicki posits that, because of these tech-nologies, employees are vulnerable to limitless surveillance by their employers and some resul-tant inappropriate use of disclosed information. Her paper is especially concerned with off-prem-ises surveillance and its potential for intrusion into an employee’s private life. She believes that existing law does not provide sufficient tools to combat surveillance and then moves on to possi-ble common law claims and a proposal for federal legislation. Lawnicki, however, ignores existing (low-tech) state laws that may protect against the very concerns she raises; and she overlooks cer-tain realities of the workplace that control what she fears is the potential for technological abuse.

A majority of states already have statutes that protect certain employee off-duty conduct. Although most of these statutes relate to off-duty use of tobacco or off-duty consumption of law-ful products, some of the statutes offer additional protection to other off-duty lawful activities as well. California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York and North Dakota all have some form of lawful outside activity laws, and other states, such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan, have laws barring employers from keeping records of their employees’ nonemployment activities or laws protecting employee privacy more general-ly.1 These laws all have the potential to protect employees from employers’ misuse of electronic geopositional information; this is to say, use be-yond what is work-related.

Generally speaking, lawful outside activity laws bar employers from discriminating against employees on account of their engaging in those activities that do not represent a reasonable and specific conflict with an employer’s business. Of course, the laws enacted by the states and the ways in which the laws have been interpreted by them may not be uniform and may have vary-ing applications. For instance, in New York the principal protection is for, inter alia, “recreation-al” activities, and, despite a statutory definition, there has been some issue as to what is regarded as recreational. One case determined that orga-nizing parties with coworkers is not considered a recreational activity, but another found that arguing with a coworker while at a restaurant not affiliated with work was a recreational activity such as to state a cause of action for a violation of New York’s law.2 In a nod to common sense, New York’s outside activities law also carves out from employee protection, inter alia, “habitually poor performance, incompetency or misconduct.”3


Jay W. Waks

Generally speaking, lawful outside activity

laws bar employers from discriminating against employees on account of their engaging in those activities that do not

represent a reasonable and specific conflict with an

employer’s business.


Additionally, in California, a court has found that its lawful outside activity law “does not set forth an independent public policy that pro-vides employees with any substantive rights, but rather, merely establishes a procedure by which the Labor Commissioner may assert, on behalf of employees, recognized constitutional rights.”4 The California Constitution, however, does pro-vide protections that go beyond other state con-stitutional protections and include a broad right to privacy, as Lawnicki points out.

No matter their limitations, lawful outside activity laws provide a means of employee protec-tion from employer action based purely on the employee’s private, off-duty, non-work related behavior. Information that employers may gather geopositionally about an employee’s lawful (non-work related) outside activities cannot be used against them, and this tracking, if it ever should occur off-duty, is effectively vitiated.

Lawnicki expresses special concern for off-premises surveillance. GPS and RFID units that typically would permit longer distance tracking, however, are not imbedded on the person (if dis-tance tracking is desired) but on the employer’s own vehicles, and the employer has every right to know where and how its property is being used. Moreover, insofar as work is concerned, employees should be accountable for their on-the-clock or work-related behavior even while off-premises. Geopositional tracking is no dif-ferent than logging a work vehicle’s mileage (by reading its odometer) or management oversight of day-to-day work activities on-premises. In an office or factory, management certainly has the ability to track each employee’s productivity and proficiency, and, indeed, is regularly criticized by employees who expect, but may not receive, regular feedback. In the low-tech workplace, if an employee is deficient in the quantity or quality of work, management normally finds out. Likewise, if an employee whose work takes him or her off-premises should deviate from the assigned tasks or should use company vehicles inappropriately, management has every right to know. While geo-positional tracking may be a blow to employees who are a bit too comfortable with their excess freedom while on the job, there is nothing in-sidious about tracking of employees in the on-duty context whether on- or off-premises or of company vehicles being used by employees when on- or off-duty.

Unfortunately, those who criticize the relationship between employee tracking and accountability do not credit the fundamental

realities that govern daily life in today’s electronic world. Let’s face it, the concept of privacy in the age of Facebook.com largely has become an illu-sion. Each and every day we all take advantage of the very electronic devices and opportunities that make privacy illusory (except for the few who would live out their days on Walden Pond). Indeed, we often feel naked without them; yet we become just as naked in using them. Moreover, by now we all are on notice of tracking capabili-ties of e-devices that accompany us just as we are of public communications that we place on-line. Common sense tells us that, when work is over, the employee who is issued a portable e-commu-nications or geopositional device simply can turn it off or drop it into a shielded bag or some such. Finally, employers today are interested in produc-tivity, increasingly find it hard enough to monitor on-duty activities and generally have little inter-est in the private, off-duty, off-premises, non-work related lives of employees. Lawnicki may be right that some employees may not be protected against the off chance of some nefarious off-duty use of GPS and RFID devices. This is not, however, because of a dearth of laws requiring notice or limiting non-work related, off-duty and off-premises tracking. Lawful, non-work related activities outside the workplace are protected, in some cases by law but in most cases by common sense and employer disinterest.

1 Cal. Lab. Code §§ 96, 98.6; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 24-34-402.5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 201-d; N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02.4-03; 557 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-51q; 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 40/9; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 214 § 1B; Mich. Comp. Laws. Ann. § 423.508.

Aside from state law constraints, the Ninth Circuit believes that the federal Stored Commu-nications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701-2711 (1986), provides some protection against disclosure of personal electronic communications made on employer-provided electronic (text messaging) devices through an outside electronic communi-cations service. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892, 900-04 (9th Cir. 2008).

2 Delran v. Prada USA, Corp., 2004 WL 5488006 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004), aff ’d, 23 A.D.3d 308 (1st Dep’t. 2005); Cavanaugh v. Doherty, 243 A.D.2d 92 (3d Dep’t. 1998).

3 N.Y. Lab. Law § 201-d(4)(iii).

4 Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 406, 533, 535 (Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2003); see also Office of the Attorney General, State of California, Opinion No. 00-303, Oct. 10, 2000.


No matter their limitations, lawful outside

activity laws provide a means of employee

protection from employer action based purely on the employee’s private, off-duty, non-work related behavior.

12 Fall 2008

COMMENT ON: “LOCATiON SUrVEiLLANCE iN ThE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT AND ThE riGhT TO PriVACY”

By Jay T. Youngdahl

Mr. Youngdahl was inducted a Fellow of the College in 2000. A union lawyer, his practice is based in Friendswood, Texas.

One of the fascinating aspects of being a labor and employment lawyer is that our legal

work often immerses us in important societal issues when they intrude into the workplace. College Fellows must understand new issues as

they arise and assist our clients in translating them into workable mandates and protections often using long standing and tangled legal rules and protections. We in the College have lived through a number of these events as various

societal movements have arisen with their myriad effects on the workplace, such as the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and with issues such as domestic partner benefits. Now, in her winning paper, Ms. Lawnicki has directed our attention to the issue of privacy in the workplace, pointing out how privacy matters are posed to move front and center into our legal work.

The concerns of Ms. Lawnicki raise two issues that will have to be parsed by labor and employment lawyers as we consider the legal issues of technology and privacy presented in the workplace. The first is, given the landscape in which we operate, how are privacy issues likely to arise and how are we to deal with them when advising our clients or, for the decision makers in our ranks, ruling on the issues before us? The second issue is, what should our concern about privacy be? That is, as lawyers on the cutting edge of law making concerning privacy and the workplace, what should our attitude be toward privacy?

On the issue of technology, Ms. Lawnicki has directed our attention to the brave new world of GPS monitoring and radio frequency identification chips (RFID).1 While we have seen a number of workplace cases involving GPS, until I read Ms. Lawnicki’s article I had not thought much about the use of RFID chips in workplaces. It appears that it is now technologically possible

to place RFID chips with unique information about an employee on or in clothes or other items that employers can potentially force employees to wear. An employer may then locate devices in the workplace that sense and record these chips so that the movements of individual employees can be tracked. A little Internet research reveals that a number of companies, such as IBM, are selling products that provide these services.2 The results of such tracking can be compared with that of other employees so that the employer can have a record of who talks with whom at the water cooler or in the employee break room. The ramifications of this technology in contested unionization struggles are obvious. The book Spychips, cited by Ms. Lawnicki, even recounts the story of one company which sells an RFID receiving device which is implanted in soap dispensers placed in bathrooms, allowing employers to tell how long employees are spending in the bathroom. In my days of factory work years ago, battles over the length of bathroom breaks were a constant feature of the labor-management relationship.

Of course, issues of new technology are routine visitors to our legal world. Our clients and the NLRB have been wrestling with email questions for some time. In The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007) the Board held that an employer did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by maintaining a policy prohibiting the use of the employer’s e-mail system for all “non-job-related solicitation” for outside groups or organizations, such as unions, even though the employer permitted personal email solicitation. Noting a “particularly high interest in the position my office will be taking” on this issue, General Counsel Ronald Meisburg produced a public “Report on Case Developments” highlighting its application of Register Guard to a number of pending charges.3

While technology in the workplace is going to be forced upon labor and employment lawyers as we are confronted with cases and issues with which we are forced to react,

Jay T. Youngdahl

Of course, issues of

new technology are routine

visitors to our legal world.

Our clients and the NLRB

have been wrestling with

email questions for some time.

(cont’d. on pg. 13



the issue of privacy in the workplace is one in which we have a special ability to help shape how society sees it going forward. This is a fact that we should all consider. The notion of privacy is contested territory in our post-9/11 world. Moreover, it is a concept that has morphed over time and which contains a cultural as well as a philosophical component.4 To take an analogous situation, when I was a young lawyer, our firm was involved in a class action discrimination case against a large southern paper company. The company had maintained separate hiring halls and even separate bathrooms for its black and white employees. Many involved in the practice and even some in the judiciary to whom the workers complained did not see a problem with the practice or did not see a legal way in which the practice could be affected. Of course, events outside the workplace soon overwhelmed this kind of thinking. Privacy has the potential to be such a similar issue. Those in our College should carefully consider the meaning and importance of privacy.

Today, we are surrounded by a cacophony of claims that “privacy is dead.” With the advent of the Internet, smart cards, Facebook, and the like, it is argued, there is really no privacy today and we should just get used to it. The claim is that, as former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz recently wrote, “The fantastic power and convenience of digital life has led us to change what we consider private in ways that we can only begin to understand…. Privacy remains a virtue, or at least we still say it does. But the balance has been tipped by other values, such as transparency, a free flow of information and physical security. We’re in the early stages of adapting to more digital and visible lives, with privacy expectations better defined by what we do than by what we say.”5

But is this really true? When the information about the issues in the family of Republican Vice-Presidential Sarah Palin first surfaced, both John McCain and Barack Obama said it was a “private family matter.” This certainly implies that the family had a privacy right in the information or at the very least that they have the right to control the flow of information about it. Or, take the case of Judge Alex Kozinski who posted “sexually explicit material” on a server open to public access, at a time obscenity trials were pending before him.

In response to media queries, the spokeswoman for the Ninth Circuit released a statement stating that “The server and its contents are a private matter.” So maybe our expectations of privacy are not dead.

Many experts involved in Internet issues do not believe that privacy is a dead letter. Professor Lawrence Lessig recently wrote, speaking of the Kozinski matter, “When it comes to government invasions of our privacy, we are (and rightly) a privacy obsessed people. We need to extend some of that obsession to the increasingly common violations by private people against other private people. There is nothing for Chief Judge Kozinski to defend because he has violated no law, and we live in a free society (or so he thought when he immigrated from Romania). A free society should feed the right to be left alone, including the right not to have to defend publicly private choices and taste, by learning not to feed the privacy trolls.”6

One of the arguments of those who believe that “privacy is dead,” is that there is a generation gap in privacy. Those of us old enough to be Fellows may still care about our privacy, but our children and their generation do not. However, those who study privacy among those most active with the Internet, like those at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School, have found that the argument that the young, the so-called Digital Natives, do not care about privacy is a myth. They write, “New technological affordances have meant that for most digital natives, sharing via digital tools has become the norm – but this does not mean they don’t care about privacy. Privacy concerns vary largely among young people based on age, education, and if repercussions of privacy compromise have been experienced. “Privacy from whom?” is an important question here – hugely differing attitudes are prevalent in regards to sharing with friends, strangers, service providers, and government entities.”7

In my lifetime, privacy arguments in legal writings moved front and center thirty years ago in the post Griswold v. Connecticut8 and Roe v. Wade9 climate. At that time, the question was not so much is privacy dead, but is privacy good. In a book published at the time, the prolific Judge Richard Posner wrote, “The question whether and to what extent people should have a legally protected right to conceal personal information arises only because some people want to uncover


One of the arguments of those who believe that “privacy is dead,” is that there is a generation gap

in privacy. Those of us old enough to be Fellows may

still care about our privacy, but our children and their

generation do not.

14 Fall 2008

such information about others – to pry, in a word.”10 Posner, as usual, was interested in the economic motivations and results of why people “pry.” He argued that, using the lens of economics, most privacy protections did more harm than good.11 On the other side were those who claimed that privacy concerns were about much more than the concealment of familial difficulties or personal sexual interests, they are a requirement for healthy human existence. Think about your intimate relationships, they argued. Within them, privacy is indispensable to the fundamental values of love, friendship, and trust. Having certain information private allows it to be selectively shared, enhancing our ability to bond with those we love. The concept of trust, so important to the formation of our relationships, would be meaningless if all privacy was truly dead.12

As lawyers and decision makers, we are going to have an ability to influence the attitudes of our clients about privacy. We should, with proper attention to our ethical responsibilities to our clients, retain sensitivity to concerns about privacy. Society will be better for it.

1/ It is interesting to note that in the 2008 Supplement to Privacy in Employment Law, 2nd Ed., author Matthew W. Finkin has added a chapter entitled “Monitoring Employee Location.” Matthew W. Finkin, Privacy in Employment Law, 2nd Ed, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs: Washington, D.C.

2 See, e.g., Healthcare Purchasing News, August, 2008, HYPERLINK “http://www.hpnonline.com/inside/2008-08/0808-RFID-RTLS.html” http://www.hpnonline.com/inside/2008-08/0808-RFID-RTLS.html

3/ Memorandum GC 08-07, Office of the General Counsel, May 15, 2008. It is noteworthy that in her prescription to prevent abuses of privacy, Ms. Lawnicki pays scant attention to possible NLRA solutions.

4/ See, e.g., Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)

5/ “Privacy? We Got Over It?”, Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2008, HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121962391804567765.html” http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121962391804567765.html

6/ HYPERLINK “http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html” http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html

7/ HYPERLINK “http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/berkmanat10/Digital_Natives” http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/berkmanat10/Digital_Natives. See, John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, New York, New York: Basic Books (2008)

8/ 381 U.S. 479 (1965).9/ 410 U.S. 113 (1973).10/ Richard A. Posner, The Economics of Justice,

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (1981) at 232.

11/ In the spirit of Freakanomics, Posner also found a negative relationship between privacy and creativity, arguing that the lack of privacy generates expressive skills, and speaking of “blacks living in slums,” argues that “lack of privacy may explain the emphasis on rhetorical skill in this otherwise deprived culture.” Posner at 280.

12/ Edward Bloustein who wrote “The man (sic) who is compelled to live every minute of his life among others and whose every need, thought, desire, fancy or gratification is subject to public scrutiny, has been deprived of his individuality and human dignity.” Edward J. Bloustein, “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser,” 39 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962, 1003 (1964).


Errata:

In the last newsletter, we published Ted Jones’ remembrance of Bill Murphy following Bill’s death in September 2007. In the process, we unintentionally omitted the final phrase which, in context, concluded the article with a reference to the issue of the NAA 1998 Proceedings where Bill’s account of the torments he was subjected to in 1954 when, teaching law at Ole Miss, he observed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education had the force and effect of law. Here is the last sentence with the citation, underlined, restored:

Bill’s fascinating account of this experience, and of his later frustrating encounter as the elected Chair of the University Faculty Council, successfully mediating between the chancellor and the student anti-war demonstrators at the University of Missouri during the Vietnam War, only then to have the inked agreement politically checkmated by the chancellor, is set forth in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Arbitrators in BNA Books, 1999, at 162-177.


SPOTLiGhT ON FELLOWS

Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, the Chicago law firm of Fellows Harvey adelstein, Gerald Gold-en, and Howard Bernstein, has been recognized as a 2008 Working Mothers and Flex-Time Lawyers LLC Best Law Firm for Women. The honor recognizes law firms that have redefined the standards of success by creating a workplace that encourages the retention and advancement of women.

Fellow Edwin S. Hop-son, of the Louisville law firm Wyatt, Tarrant, & Bombs LLP, was included in the 2008 Kentucky Super Lawyers and in its Top 50 Lawyers in the Common-wealth of Kentucky.

Fellows Gary L. Leiber and Edward r. Levin, from the Washington, DC law firm of Saul Ewing LLP, have been named to the 2008 Washington, DC Super Lawyers List. This list annually recognizes and honors the top five percent of lawyers in Washington, DC based on surveys with lawyers throughout the DC area and independent research by Law and Politics.

Fellow Catherine Hagen Pepe has been appointed to serve as an independent Diversity Monitor for Morgan Stanley’s Global Wealth Management Group. In this position, she is responsible for monitoring the Company’s efforts to carry out the terms of a five-year $46 million class action discrimination settlement with women Financial Advisors and Financial

Advisor Trainees, which the Company entered into last year.

Fellow D. Patton Pelfrey, of the Louisville law firm Frost Brown Todd LLC, received the Distinguished Alumnus Award from Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville. In addition, he has been in-cluded in The Best Lawyers in America continuously

since 1989, as well as being listed in Chambers USA, America’s Leading Lawyers for Business; Kentucky Super Lawyers – Top 50.

Fellow tod Schleier, from Schleier Law Offices, PC, has written a book, Deposing and Examining Employment Witnesses, which has been published by James Publishing Company. It includes deposition check-lists, trial examinations and practical tips in handling all

types of witnesses encountered in employment litigation including experts. Mr. Schleier, who has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1989, represents employees and serves as a media-tor and arbitrator in Phoenix, AZ.

Tod Schleier

Edwin S. Hopson

D. Patton Pelfrey

The Newsletter Committee continues to strongly

encourage all Fellows to submit

for publication any honors,

accomplishments or other notable

relative information.

OCTOBEr 23, 2008 DECLArED “LOUiS B. KUShNEr DAY” iN ThE CiTY OF PiTTSBUrGh

Fellow Louis Kushner, with the law firm Rothman Gordon, PC was recognized for forty years of service when the City of Pittsburgh declared October 23,

2008 “Louis B. Kushner Day.” Councilman William Peduto sponsored the proclamation, which cited Mr. Kushner’s years of service to Rothman Gordon and the Pittsburgh community. Mr. Kushner was inducted as a Fellow in 2003 and currently serves on the Third Circuit Credentials Committee. He is a nationally distinguished labor and employment Law attorney and mediator and has built his reputation as a representative of executives, minority shareholders, and professionals such attorneys, CPA’s, physicians, teachers and college/university professors with respect to their employment matters and the representation of numerous public and private sector unions.Louis Kushner

16 Fall 2008

the College of Labor &Employment Lawyers1050 Connecticut Ave., NWSuite 300Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 955-8225 Telephone(202) 467-0539 Facsimilewww.laborandemploymentcollege.org

The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, Inc.

Newsletter Staff

Don MacDonald, EditorBruce A. Miller, ContributorArthur F. Silbergeld, ContributorJay W. Waks, ContributorJay T. Youngdahl, Contributor

Susan Wan, Executive Director

Board of Governors

Lonny H. Dolin, Rochester, NY –PresidentMaurice Wexler, Memphis TN – President-ElectBarry J. Kearney, Washington, DC – Vice PresidentWilliam J. Kilberg, Washington, DC – SecretaryJoel A. D’Alba, Chicago, IL – Treasurer

Donald J. Capuano – Washington, DCHope B. Eastman – Bethesda, MDJoel C. Glanstein – New York, NYMargaret A. Harris – Houston, TXKathy L. Krieger – Washington, DCSpencer H. Lewis, Jr. – New York, NYAdele Rapport – Chicago, ILMark S. Rudy – San Francisco, CAJohn E. Sands – West Orange, NJRobert A. Siegel – Los Angeles, CAPaul H. Tobias – Cincinnati, OH

BOOK rEViEW: THE NINE: INSIDE THE SECRET WORLD OF THE SUpREME COURT, BY JEFFrEY TOOBiN

Toobin is a staff writer with The New Yorker and a senior legal analyst at CNN. In this best selling book about the Court’s decision in Bush v Gore, he attempts to reveal the on-going dynamic that

exists among the Justices charged with the responsibility of deciding the law of the land. The book discusses the conservative counter-revolution that began with the departure of Justice

O’Connor, pointing to the fact that, even though Republican nominees have far out numbered Democratic appointees over the past twenty years, there has been little success in developing a general rollback of the rulings deemed political. When considering those issues that come before the court and are deemed political, it is no longer the quality of the argument that is apt to prevail, but rather deference to the identity of the Justices.

The author claims to have spoken with seventy-five clerks and former clerks as well as some of the Justices. Although the basis for the numerous and fascinating anecdotes, insights, and facts found in the book could have only come from the Justices, their names are not revealed, leaving their identities to the speculation of the reader.

Nina Totenberg calls The Nine by far the best book this year about the Supreme Court, and Doris Kearns Goodwin calls it “a remarkable narrative which brings to life the inner world of the Court”.

Reader-at-Large, Fellow Emeritus and College Past President Don MacDonald

the college of labor & employment lawyers · e. tallent of washington, dc, the late charles a....

Documents