Alaska Employment Law

Alaska USA FCU handbook: The Washington Court of Appeals has construed various portions of the employee handbook of Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, including a rather unusual provision that barred the employer from conducting salary reviews and adjustments more frequently than annually (with some exceptions).  The Court applied Washington state law. 

It held that the case must go to trial on the employee’s claim that the credit union breached the handbook contract by reducing his salary.  The Court also addressed these issues, though, again, under Washington, not Alaska state law: whether an at-will employee is entitled to reasonable prior notice of changes to the employee handbook; and whether the employer undercut a handbook disclaimer by advising the employee, in a letter, that the handbook governed his employment relationship. Duncan v. Alaska USA FCU, 199 P.3d 991 (Wash. Ct.App. 2008).

The Seattle office of Holmes Weddle & Barcott represents the credit union.

Employer lay representative at unemployment hearing:  An Illinois intermediate appellate court has held that a compensated employer lay representative at an unemployment hearing had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The state Bar Association filed an amicus brief for the employee, and SHRM and various business groups filed a brief in support of the employer. 

While the representative (from NSN Employer Services, a national group) examined and cross-examined witnesses and made evidentiary objections, he did not draft pleadings, negotiate with the employee, cite authority, make closing remarks,or take any other steps that required “use of legal knowledge or skill.”  In holding for the employer, the Court relied on an Illinois statute that permitted a party to an unemployment case to “be represented by a union or any duly authorized agent.”  A 2007 Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion is consistent with the Illinois opinion.

In Alaska, AS 23.20.465 (”Representation of claimant”) provides:

A claimant in a proceeding before the department or an appeal tribunal may be represented by counsel or other authorized agent.  The counsel or agent may not charge or receive for services more than an amount approved by the department.

(Emph. added.)  There’s no comparable Alaska statute regarding representation of employers.

Grafner v. Ill. Dep’t of Empl. Sec., Ill. Ct.App.4th Div.  (Aug. 6, 2009)

H/T: Adjunct Law Prof Blog.