R&D Molders, Inc.: Does anyone have any experience with validating their IQMS ERP system for the FDA standards? Who you used - internal vs external? Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
R&D Molders, Inc.: IQMS Software Validation for FDA
↧
↧
Intertech Plastics, Inc: PTO Accruals
Admin: Hi Jen,
In MAPP's Wage and Salary study with collect data on PTO time in relation to years of service. I'll email you that page.
Thanks,
Ashley (Turrell) Burleson
Ashley Burleson
↧
Hunter Douglas: Cavitation vs Estimated Annual Usage Standards
Hunter Douglas: Hello Everyone and Happy Holidays, reaching out to see what others use for determining number of cavities in a tool in regards to annual usage. Businesses change as has ours and we find that as capacity and building footprint gets tighter we try to build higher cavitation tooling regardless if volume supports it just to reduce machine hours. Just looking to see what rule of thumb other companies are using. Do you look at it this way or do you back into a max machine hours you will consume on a press per product which will determine your tooling cavitation? Feel free to contact me direct at [email]Joey.Priest@hunterdouglas.com[/email]
↧
GS Industries of Bassett: Older Farrell Drawings Needed
GS Industries of Bassett: If you have older Farrell machines that might be same models, please consider sharing your drawings. Thanks you.
First machine: 1500 Ton Farrell, 1971, serial # 71WP3000, model # RS225-1500. The second machine is a 150 Ton Farrell, 1972, serial# 72WP2540, model # RS1500-225. Third machine is 1000 Ton Farrell, 1972, serial # 72WP56, model # RS150-10000. Fourth machine is 475 Ton Farrell, 1971, serial# 71WP87, model# RS-70-475. Fifth machine is 475 Ton Farrell, 1970, serial# 70WP5335, model# RS-70-475.
Donna Rorrer
↧
Met 2 Plastic, LLC: Thermal Cameras to measure mold surface temperature
Colors For Plastics, Inc.: Mike,
You will not be able to use a thermal imaging camera to shoot the mold alone. You can leave the part on the core and shoot it. You would have to shoot quickly right after mold open. The IR rays will bounce off of the mold and give you erroneous measurements. You could mask off your mold with black electrical tape and shoot that. Flir makes a good one. Model E30. There's so much information to send in this email so why don't we come over and discuss.
Joe Cascarano
Colors For Plastics
Joe Cascarano
↧
↧
Benesch : NLRB Reverses Browning-Ferris Industries Decision
Benesch : The National Labor Relations Board, composed of a Republican majority for the first time in more than ten years, acted quickly to reverse the controversial 2015 Browning-Ferris Industries decision which had drastically expanded the Board’s long established standard for determining joint employer status.
As predicted in our most recent e-alert and with Chairman Phillip A. Miscimarra’s term ending on December 16, the Board has been active this week while a 3-2 Republican majority remains. Next week, the Board returns to a 2-2 split and any more significant decisions will likely be delayed until a majority is restored.
Board Overturns Browning-Ferris and Returns to Direct and Immediate Control Joint Employer Test
On December 14, 2017, less than two years after rewriting and substantially loosening its longstanding test for determining if two employers can be considered joint employers in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), the Board returned to its previous standard that was in effect for over 30 years. In Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), the Board returned to its prior standard by requiring a company to exercise direct and immediate control as a prerequisite to finding joint employer status. In contrast, the short-lived standard created by Browning-Ferris only required a company to have indirect or potential control over workers who were otherwise employed by another entity.
Lamenting the “vague and ill-defined standard” established in Browning-Ferris, the Board announced its return to its prior test, which “provided certainty and predictability.” The Board held that finding joint-employer status once again requires proof:
>that a putative joint employer exercised joint control, rather than merely having reserved the right to exercise control; >that the control is direct and immediate rather than indirect; and >that joint-employer status will not result from “limited and routine” control.
The Board emphasized that the Browning-Ferris test was incorrect because entities that never exercised any joint control over essential terms and conditions of employment could nonetheless be found to be a joint employer because of the existence of “reserved” joint control, “indirect” control, or control that was “limited and routine.” In Hy-Brand, the Board majority (the outgoing Miscimarra, joined by new Republican members Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel) explained that it sought to recognize the practical application of the rule and clarify the analysis by signaling a “return today to a standard that has served labor law and collective bargaining well, a standard that is understandable and rooted in the real world.” The Board majority described Browning-Ferris as “a distortion of common law as interpreted by the Board and the courts.” Importantly, the majority recognized the viability of long-standing third-party business relationships that include subcontracting, outsourcing, and temporary or contingent employment that were all jeopardized by the overbroad indirect or potential control standard created by Browning-Ferris.
Ironically, the Board found that Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors Ltd and Brandt Construction Co, are joint employers because they are both responsible for firing employees who engaged in a work stoppage. Nonetheless, presented with the joint employer question, the Board took the opportunity to return to the more stable standard in place prior to Browning-Ferris.
The reversal of Browning-Ferris is independent of, but consistent with, legislation passed by the House of Representatives and currently in the Senate to clarify the joint employer standard under the NLRA and FLSA, which we discussed in an e-alert last month.
Board Rewrites Standard for Analyzing Legality of Employer Rules, Handbooks, and Policies
In addition to returning to the joint employer standard that employers had relied on for years, on Thursday the Board also overturned its 2004 decision in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004) in deciding The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). In Lutheran Heritage, the Board had established a three-prong test for determining whether a company rule or policy is unlawful in restricting employees’ Section 7 right to engage in protected concerted conduct. Under Lutheran Heritage, if a rule is facially neutral, the Board will nonetheless find that it violates employees’ Section 7 rights if (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.
In The Boeing Company, the Board examined a neutral work rule under the “reasonably construe” prong of the analysis. The employer, Boeing, maintains a policy restricting the use of camera-enabled devices such as cell phones on its property. The rule does not explicitly refer to Section 7 activity, was not adopted in response to protected activity, and was never applied to restrict the activity. Nevertheless, applying the first prong of the Lutheran Heritage analysis, an ALJ found that the rule was unlawful because employees could reasonably construe it to prohibit Section 7 activity. The ALJ did not consider Boeing’s security need for the rule. The Board stated that the ALJ decision exposed the “fundamental problems with the Board’s application of Lutheran Heritage” and thus overturned the “reasonably construe” standard. Similar to the Hy-Brand decision, the Board’s goal in The Boeing Company was to provide “greater clarity and certainty to employees, employers and unions.”
Instead, the Board established a new standard: “when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, two factors will be considered: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.” In applying this two-step analysis, the Board has a “duty to strike the proper balance between … asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy.” The Board also created a new system to classify employer rules:
>Category 1: a rule is lawful because it does not interfere with Section 7 rights or is lawful because any interference is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule; >Category 2: the Board determines that maintenance of a rule is unlawful by conducting individualized scrutiny into adverse impact upon Section 7 rights that outweighs any justifications; and >Category 3: a rule is unlawful because it predictably has an adverse impact on Section 7 rights that outweighs any justifications.
The Board noted that the balancing in The Boeing Company is consistent with Lutheran Heritage, but elaborated that analysis under Lutheran Heritage routinely failed to give adequate weight to employer interests. In establishing the new standard, the Board expressed hope that future analysis would ensure a meaningful balancing of employee rights and employer interests.
Other Board Activity
In addition to the Board’s decisions in Hy-Brand and The Boeing Company on December 14, the Board took action on two other issues earlier in the week.
First, on December 11, the Board reversed a 2016 decision that restricted ALJs from accepting a proposed settlement unless it provided a full remedy for each unfair labor practice alleged. In UPMC and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, 365 NLRB No. 153 (2017), the Board held that settlements can be accepted so long as the ALJ finds the offer reasonable and even if the charging party objects to the settlement terms. In determining what is reasonable, the Board referred to longstanding precedent established in Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740 (1987).
The next day, the Board asked for public comment regarding whether to revoke or change the Board’s 2014 rule that accelerated the timeline for union elections, known as the “quickie election” rule. The request for comment asked for feedback on three questions:
1. Should the 2014 election rule be retained without change?
2. Should it be modified and, if so, what modifications should be made?
3. And should the rule be rescinded?
In addition, if rescission was recommended, the Board asked whether the NLRB should return to the previous rules in place prior to the 2014 rule or whether those rules should be changed. In each of the five years prior to the implementation of the 2014 quickie election rule, the median time between filing a representation case petition and an election was 38 days. In the first year under the quickie election rule, the median time was 33 days, and last year it dropped to 23 days.
Although Republican Chairman Miscimarra’s term expires on December 16, Democrat Board Member Mark Gaston Pearce’s term will also expire by the time the Board considers and/or acts on the public comments received. Consequently, the Board will move forward maintaining its Republican majority (2-1) at that point.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch's Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | [email]ebaisden@beneschlaw.com[/email] | 216.363.4676
Steve Moss | [email]smoss@beneschlaw.com[/email] | 216.363.4675
Adam Primm | [email]aprimm@beneschlaw.com[/email] | 216.363.4451
↧
Benesch : NLRB Throws Out Micro-Unit Bargaining Units And Returns To Decades-Old Test for Implementing Changes
Benesch : On the heels of Thursday’s groundbreaking decisions reversing Browning-Ferris and Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, in another important decision on Friday, the National Labor Relations Board scrapped the Obama-era decision, Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), which made it far easier for unions to organize subsets of a company’s employees – in effect cherry-picking a group favoring organization as a way of getting foot in the door. The smaller units proposed by employees and unions protected by Specialty Healthcare are commonly referred to as “micro-units.”
The Board (with the familiar 3-2 majority of Republicans Phillip Miscimarra, Marvin Kaplan, and William Emanuel) reviewed a 102-person proposed micro-unit and decided to reverse Specialty Healthcare. In PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), rather than forcing employers to prove that excluded workers shared an “overwhelming community of interest” with the employees in the proposed unit – a requirement the majority was concerned forced the Board to “disregard the interests of the excluded employees” except for rare circumstances in which such an overwhelming community of interests is present – the Board instead reinstated its prior analysis that examined whether the petitioned-for unit shared a community of interest “sufficiently distinct” from excluded employees to warrant a separate unit. In other words, the petitioned-for unit must show that they are “sufficiently distinct” from excluded employees working at the same jobsite to be certified as a separate unit, rather than the employer or excluded employees having to prove that they share an “overwhelming community of interest” to be included in the petitioned-for unit under Specialty Healthcare.
The decision returns balance to the appropriate unit analysis among the interests of the employees in the proposed unit, the excluded employees, and the affected employer instead of forcing the employer and excluded employees to prove an “overwhelming” community of interest to overcome the presumed viability of a proposed unit.
Board Also Returned to 50-Year Precedent Regarding Changes to Employment Conditions
In another 3-2 decision on Friday, the Board restored a 50-year-old standard regarding an employer’s ability to change employment terms of employees without bargaining with the union where the employer has a past practice of making similar changes. Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017). Raytheon reversed E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) (DuPont), a one-year-old Obama-era decision that redefined what constituted a “change” requiring notice to the union and the opportunity to bargain. DuPont held that if an employer continued to take the same actions it took previously under a since-expired collective bargaining agreement, following that consistent past practice constituted a “change” which required bargaining with and notice to the union. In reaching that conclusion, the DuPont decision rewrote five decades of Board precedent.
The precedent stemmed from the 1962 Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962), which held that unionized employers must refrain from making unilateral changes in employment terms unless the union first receives notice and the opportunity to bargain. However, under Katz, the definition of “change” was typically read to mean “a substantial departure from past practice” with no analysis of whether a collective bargaining agreement existed when the prior actions created the past practice. Just two years after Katz, the Board rejected the precise position the it adopted in DuPont – that whether an employer’s actions constitute a “change” does not depend on whether past actions were permitted by a since-expired collective bargaining agreement. Shell Oil, 149 NLRB 283 (1964).
Thus, the Raytheon decision returns the Board to the Katz and Shell Oil precedent by finding that the employer was not obligated to bargain with the union over changes where the changes were in line with unilateral changes made at the same time each year for more than a decade. The changes were consistent with past practice and did not constitute a “change” for purposes of bargaining.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch's Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | [email]ebaisden@beneschlaw.com[/email] | 216.363.4676
Adam Primm | [email]aprimm@beneschlaw.com[/email] | 216.363.4451
↧
Dymotek Corp: Urgent Need Material: Grivory HT2V-5H (Natural)
Dymotek Corp: Hello,
We have an urgent need for 50 - 100lbs of Grivory HT2V-5H (Natural). Please contact me if you have any for sale.
Much appreciated!
RC
[email]rcrichardello@dymotek.com[/email]
↧
Ralph S Alberts Co Inc: Needed - Lexan 121-31142 for Infrared Transmitting
Ralph S Alberts Co Inc: All,
We are in urgent need of 50 lbs. of the following:
LEXAN 121 - COLOR/TINT: SABIC COLOR #31142 OR EQUIVALENT FOR INFRARED TRANSMITTING
Sabic has a MOQ of 2200lbs
An equivalent would be an option.
Please contact me if anyone has any for sale or any ideas for me.
Thanks
Russ Frye
Russ Frye
↧
↧
Vaupell Midwest Molding & Tool: Sabic Lexan Materials Available
Vaupell Midwest Molding & Tool: We have the following Sabic virgin materials for sale:
Lexan HPS1R-1124 Clear 2153#
Lexan HPS1R-1125 Clear 14,230#
Pat Donovan-Martin
↧
CH3 Solutions LLC: Gas assist
CH3 Solutions LLC: I am looking for a highly experienced Gas assist consultant to help us with a current project. Please contact me for details. Thanks!
Rodney Davenport
↧
Dymotek Corp: Needed: Delrin FG500
Dymotek Corp: I have a customer in a backorder situation that needs a Gaylord of Delrin FG500. Any quantity will help alleviate the current need.
Thank you,
Rob Theriaque
[email]rtheriaque@dymotek.com[/email]
↧
Erie Molded Plastics: Metal in hot runner manifold
Erie Molded Plastics: Does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean loose metal out of a hot runner manifold? We are pretty certain that a small piece of metal found its way into our hot runner system. A component in our injection unit was shearing so we thoroughly pulled and cleaned the unit and replaced components. Now we're seeing metal in our product, and it's always the same cavity.
↧
↧
Wescon Plastics: Indistry standard scrap % of sales?
Wescon Plastics: I am looking for a benchmark on industry standard scrap/rejects as a percent of sales. does anyone know of a report or have an idea of what the standard is?
Christopher Everett
↧
Accent Plastics: Lexan 925A-NA1044 Needed
Accent Plastics: Looking for 800#+ of Lexan 925A-NA1044. Please advise any availability.
↧
Granite State Plastics, Inc. : Need Ind Contractor Quality Engineer with Medical Background
Granite State Plastics, Inc. : We need a Quality Engineer to help us manage our workload for the next two months here in Southern NH. This candidate will work on several projects as a member of the Quality team, including a managing a medical project that requires IQ OQ PQ. Candidate will need to provide references indicating leadership experience in this type of project. Any suggestions and referrals are appreciated!
↧
Novation Industries : SCRUM
Novation Industries : Looking for a plastic company that has initiated the SCRUM philosophy into their organization.
I would like to hear how you prepared for the change, how you communicated the change, how you actually initiated it and the bumps and bruises along the way (if there were any).
Brian J
↧
↧
KEY Manufacturing Inc: Van Doll Ekote - 3063ALC - Black
KEY Manufacturing Inc: I have qty 7 NEW/unopened gallons of this Van Doll E Kote - 3063ALC Black. This was produced in September 2017. Be willing to sell this off at a reduced cost of $ 350.00 per gallon. FOB, Collect - Madison,In 47250. If interested please contact Jerry Tatman, Manar Inc - email:jtatman@manarinc.com
↧
Benesch : Unified Carrier Registration Fee Final Rule
Benesch : On January 5, 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) published a Final Rule setting the fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement (“UCR”). The January 5, 2018 Final Rule (the “Final Rule”) reduces annual registration fees to be collected from motor carriers (for-hire and private), brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies for the 2018, 2019, and subsequent years.
All interstate motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies should endeavor to complete their UCR registration as soon as possible. Though states’ enforcement of the payment of UCR fees generally begins on January 1 of the registration year, the UCR’s Board of Directors (“UCR Board”) has requested that states delay enforcement for 90 days (April 5, 2018) following the publish date of the Final Rule setting fees due to the delay in setting the fee schedule. The State of Indiana’s Department of Revenue, which operates and maintains the national online UCR registration system, had announced it would begin accepting registrations on January 5, 2018. Those interstate motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies based in states that maintain their own UCR systems may require more time for the state department to be prepared to accept registrations.
The fee schedule, as determined by the Final Rule is as follows:
[url]http://www.beneschlaw.com/Setting-the-Course-for-2018-and-Beyond-The-Unified-Carrier-Registration-Fee-Final-Rule-01-08-2018/[/url] (please click on link for chart)
This Final Rule was anticipated in early 2017, as federal law requires that the UCR may only collect up to a statutory maximum, and on March 14, 2017 the UCR Board voted to recommend a reduction of registration fees collected in 2018, 2019, and subsequent years. The adjustment in fees and the Final Rule were required because the fees collected for the 2016 registration year exceeded the total revenue entitlements for the first time in UCR history.
Please contact Kelly Mulrane at [email]kmulrane@beneschlaw.com[/email] or 614-223-9318 with any questions or if you need assistance with any UCR-related issues.
↧
Benesch : DOL Abandons Six-Factor Intern Test
Benesch : On January 5, 2018, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) adopted a more lenient standard for assessing whether interns qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Previously, in 2010, the DOL promulgated a more onerous six-factor test. Under that test, an intern was considered an employee unless each of six factors were met. Employers were forced to consider, for example, whether interns displaced any regular employees or whether they derived any “immediate advantage” from the interns’ work.
Now the DOL, in reducing the burden on employers, has aligned itself with several appellate courts and implemented the “primary beneficiary” test. This seven-factor test is derived out of a 2015 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. The test comprehensively analyzes the “economic realities” of an intern’s relationship with his or her employer to determine the “primary beneficiary” of the relationship and is more in line with the current test for determining independent contractor status.
The seven factors of the newly-implemented test are designed for flexibility and the DOL advises that in administering the test, the unique circumstances of each case should be considered. The factors primarily focus on the expectations of the parties, the educational benefits, and the correlations with formal courses of study.
The DOL has stated that it will update its enforcement policies and provide Wage and Hour Division investigators increased flexibility to holistically analyze internships on an ad hoc basis. This development is expected to benefit employers and ease employer concerns that interns will be inadvertently misclassified as employees.
If you have any questions on this topic please contact a member of our Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden (Chair) at [email]ebaisden@beneschlaw.com[/email] or 216.363.4676.
Karly B. Johnson at [email]kjohnson@beneschlaw.com[/email] or 216.363.6265.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
