Frederick D. Braid represents management in the practice of labor and employment law, and leads Holland & Knight’s New York practice group. He has represented employers in the private sector for more than 40 years with respect to all aspects of labor relations and employment law, including counseling and litigation with respect to union organizing activity; collective bargaining and contract administration; grievance and interest arbitration; acquisitions, closures, relocations, restructuring and bankruptcy; occupational safety and health; employment discrimination and affirmative action compliance; whistleblowing; employment-related torts, including defamation, negligent hiring and retention; employment at will, employment agreements, restrictive covenants, trade secret confidentiality; withdrawal liability, wage and hour compliance; personnel practices and employment policies.
Mr. Braid has represented employers in virtually every industry ranging in size from small closely held businesses to multinational corporations and multiemployer associations, both nonunion employers and employers who have established collective bargaining relationships. He has represented employers subject to both the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act.
Mr. Braid has published scholarly articles in journals for labor lawyers and is the original author on collective bargaining in the treatise, NLRA Law & Practice,
and also a contributing author to the American Bar Association’s treatise, Occupational Safety and Health Law
Capital Cleaning Contractors, Inc. v. NLRB, 147 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1998) — Set aside NLRB remedial order as punitive, finding that successor employer who had offered employment on its own terms but who had been found to have engaged in discriminatory hiring could not be ordered to reinstate former employer''''s unionized employees on the terms and conditions they had enjoyed under their former employer''''s collective bargaining agreement since it was entitled to establish initial terms of employment from which negotiations with former employer''''s union could negotiate if it had majority status. There was no basis to assume the successor would have negotiated and agreed to the former employer''''s terms and conditions, and ordering it to assume those liabilities was punitive not remedial.
Lumex, Inc. v. Highsmith, 919 F. Supp. 624 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) — Established the doctrine of inevitable disclosure in employment restrictive covenant litigation in New York.
Boyle v. Cybex International, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 115 (EDNY 1996). — Successful defense of employer sued by terminated president claiming his termination was in breach of his employment agreement and motivated by an intention to deprive him of vesting in stock options to which he would have been entitled shortly after he was terminated.
Local 1104, CWA v. NLRB, 520 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1975) — Held that an employee working under a collective bargaining agreement with an agency shop union security provision who tendered the agency fee on condition that he be admitted to membership could not be terminated at the request of a union who denied the employee membership and, therefore, did not receive the agency fee. This answered an issue left open by the United States Supreme Court decision in its General Motors decision upholding the legitimacy of agency shop union security provisions.