Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In an effort to “help employers to review their handbooks and other rules, and conform them if necessary, to ensure that they are lawful,” the National Labor Relations Board's (the Board) general counsel recently issued a 30-page memorandum setting forth guidance on employers' internal personnel policies to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The report is relevant to nearly all private employers, regardless of whether they have union-represented employees.
Although the Board's general counsel said in a letter accompanying the guidance memorandum that he believes “most employers do not draft their employee handbooks with the object of prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by the [Act],” the guidance memorandum is troubling because it finds that many seemingly innocuous, sensible employer handbook provisions and policies are unlawful because they could potentially be interpreted to restrict employees' rights to engage in activities protected under the Act.
While the guidance memorandum has no independent legal authority, it does signal to all employers (union and non-union) those areas that the general counsel's office will investigate in pursuing unfair labor practice charges. As we have seen over the last couple of years, the Board has become much more aggressive in pursuing charges against non-union companies for policy violations, and this guidance memorandum helps clarify the general counsel's position.
Under the Act, Section 7 protects the rights of all non-management employees, union and non-union, to discuss and to complain about wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The guidance memorandum focuses on eight distinct sets of rules or policies, but cautions that the examples are illustrative, not exclusive. It gives a number of examples of unlawful versus lawful policies and rules, the most significant of which are as follows.
Rules Regarding Confidentiality
Employees have the right to discuss wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees, as well as with non-employees, such as union representatives. Thus, an employer's confidentiality policy that specifically prohibits employee discussions of terms and conditions of employment, or that employees would reasonably understand to prohibit such discussions, violates the Act. Examples of unlawful rules include:
Rules Regarding Conduct Toward Fellow Employees
In addition to employees' rights to publicly discuss their terms and conditions of employment and to criticize their employer's labor policies, employees also have the right to argue and debate with each other about unions, management and their terms and conditions of employment. Thus, the following rules have been found unlawful:
Rules Regarding Employee Conduct Toward the Company and Supervisors
Another area that the Board has carefully scrutinized over the last several years is cases involving disciplinary action where employees have been insubordinate, negative, or disrespectful toward supervisors or upper management. Once again, the Board's rationale is that employees have a protected right under the NLRA to be disrespectful to supervisors regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Examples of unlawful rules concerning this issue include:
Rules Regarding Employee Communications with Outside Parties
The guidance memorandum notes that employees have a right to communicate with news media, government agencies and third parties about wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, handbook rules that restrict communications with third parties and particularly the media are frequently found unlawful. As a result, the following rule has been found unlawful:
An example of a lawful rule includes:
Conclusion
This article will conclude next month with discussion of rules restricting use of company logos, copyright and trademarks; employer rules regarding leaving work; employer conflict-of-interest rules, and more. Now is the time for employers to carefully review their employee handbooks, policies and other written procedures of light of the above guidelines and those that will be discussed next month.
Thomas G. Servodidio chairs Duane Morris' Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group, and also serves on the firm's Executive Committee. He is resident in the firm's Philadelphia office. Adam Keating is an associate in the Atlanta office. This article is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors' law firm or its individual partners.
In an effort to “help employers to review their handbooks and other rules, and conform them if necessary, to ensure that they are lawful,” the National Labor Relations Board's (the Board) general counsel recently issued a 30-page memorandum setting forth guidance on employers' internal personnel policies to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The report is relevant to nearly all private employers, regardless of whether they have union-represented employees.
Although the Board's general counsel said in a letter accompanying the guidance memorandum that he believes “most employers do not draft their employee handbooks with the object of prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by the [Act],” the guidance memorandum is troubling because it finds that many seemingly innocuous, sensible employer handbook provisions and policies are unlawful because they could potentially be interpreted to restrict employees' rights to engage in activities protected under the Act.
While the guidance memorandum has no independent legal authority, it does signal to all employers (union and non-union) those areas that the general counsel's office will investigate in pursuing unfair labor practice charges. As we have seen over the last couple of years, the Board has become much more aggressive in pursuing charges against non-union companies for policy violations, and this guidance memorandum helps clarify the general counsel's position.
Under the Act, Section 7 protects the rights of all non-management employees, union and non-union, to discuss and to complain about wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The guidance memorandum focuses on eight distinct sets of rules or policies, but cautions that the examples are illustrative, not exclusive. It gives a number of examples of unlawful versus lawful policies and rules, the most significant of which are as follows.
Rules Regarding Confidentiality
Employees have the right to discuss wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees, as well as with non-employees, such as union representatives. Thus, an employer's confidentiality policy that specifically prohibits employee discussions of terms and conditions of employment, or that employees would reasonably understand to prohibit such discussions, violates the Act. Examples of unlawful rules include:
Rules Regarding Conduct Toward Fellow Employees
In addition to employees' rights to publicly discuss their terms and conditions of employment and to criticize their employer's labor policies, employees also have the right to argue and debate with each other about unions, management and their terms and conditions of employment. Thus, the following rules have been found unlawful:
Rules Regarding Employee Conduct Toward the Company and Supervisors
Another area that the Board has carefully scrutinized over the last several years is cases involving disciplinary action where employees have been insubordinate, negative, or disrespectful toward supervisors or upper management. Once again, the Board's rationale is that employees have a protected right under the NLRA to be disrespectful to supervisors regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Examples of unlawful rules concerning this issue include:
Rules Regarding Employee Communications with Outside Parties
The guidance memorandum notes that employees have a right to communicate with news media, government agencies and third parties about wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, handbook rules that restrict communications with third parties and particularly the media are frequently found unlawful. As a result, the following rule has been found unlawful:
An example of a lawful rule includes:
Conclusion
This article will conclude next month with discussion of rules restricting use of company logos, copyright and trademarks; employer rules regarding leaving work; employer conflict-of-interest rules, and more. Now is the time for employers to carefully review their employee handbooks, policies and other written procedures of light of the above guidelines and those that will be discussed next month.
Thomas G. Servodidio chairs
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.