REAL AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS INCREASE 0.2% IN FEBRUARY

• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported that real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.2 percent from January 2026 to February 2026. This result stems from an increase of 0.4 percent in average hourly earnings combined with an increase of 0.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Real average weekly earnings increased 0.1 percent over the month due to the change in real average hourly earnings combined with no change in the average workweek.
• From February 2025 to February 2026, real average hourly earnings increased 1.4 percent.

NLRB’s Aggressive Bargaining Order Framework Rejected by FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT as Agency Overreach

• The S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) controversial Biden-era framework—known as the Cemex standard—that empowered the Board to order employers to bargain with unions whenever the Board determined that employer misconduct undermined the election process, regardless of how employees voted.
• The court held that the NLRB improperly exercised its adjudicatory authority when it should have engaged in rulemaking instead. Consequently, the majority held that the Cemex standard cannot serve as the basis for a bargaining order.
• The court emphasized that the Board overstepped its authority by disregarding the longstanding preference for secret-ballot elections “as the barometer of a union’s support among employees.”
• The traditional Gissel standard for bargaining orders remains valid law nationwide: employers that commit serious unfair labor practices may still be ordered to bargain when a fair re-run election is not possible.

Federal Court Denies FLSA’s Administrative Exemption for Staffing Recruiters

• The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled that recruiters for an information technology staffing firm were entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court reasoned that the recruiters should not be classified as administrative exempt because they did production work, not administrative work, and did not exercise sufficient discretion in important business matters.
• The court relied on the administrative/production dichotomy, which distinguishes nonexempt workers who produce and sell a company’s goods and services from exempt workers who administer the business.
• The court also concluded that the job duties of the recruiters did not rise to the level of using independent judgment in significant business matters.
• This case highlights the importance of confirming that all aspects of the job duties test are satisfied before claiming an exemption from overtime. Although the recruiters were engaged in office or nonmanual work, the court concluded that their work was not related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers. As such, it was deemed production, not administrative work.
• The court also concluded that the workers did not exercise sufficient discretion over matters of significance. When an employer stipulates a correct way to do a job, it is difficult to argue that employees have discretion over important matters.

If you are not a retainer client, contact us to learn about our services by calling 423-764-4127 or click here.

SESCO FEATURED PRODUCT

2026 WEBINAR SERIES (PART 1)

UPCOMING WEBINAR:

MARCH 24: THE BASICS OF HR SYSTEMS: MASTER YOUR PERSONNEL FILES AND COMPLIANCE

1-2:30 PM EST

TO VIEW ALL WEBINARS AND TO REGISTER CLICK  HERE

For more information or registration; contact tonya@sescomgt.com

SESCO FEATURED PRODUCT

ASICS

1- 2:30 PM EST

TO VIEW ALL WEBINARS AND TO REGISTER CLICK HERE

SESCO FEATURED PRODUCT

2026 WEBINAR SERIES (PART 1)

UPCOMING WEBINAR:

MARCH 10: SUPERVISOR CORE COMPETENCIES: BACK TO BASICS

1- 2:30 PM EST

TO VIEW ALL WEBINARS AND TO REGISTER CLICK HERE

For more information or registration,