Employees have rights to certain protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers cannot interfere with these rights. But what happens when an employee’s conduct during a protected activity becomes abusive? In its July 21 decision, the National Labor Relations Board acknowledged an employer’s right to discipline employees despite protected activity if the employer shows it would have disciplined the employee in the absence of the protected activity.
Articles Discussing Protected Concerted Activity Under The NLRA.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a supplemental decision on May 20, 2020, finding lawful a policy prohibiting employees from possessing or using their cell phones on the manufacturing floor or at their workstations.
On March 25, 2020, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) emphasized the broad reach of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) in non-union settings. Ground Zero Foundation d/b/a Academy for Creative Enrichment, Case 4-CA-245956. Charging Party was hired as a summer camp counselor, but
Overruling Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB 1108 (2015), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that investigative confidentiality rules are lawful Category 1 rules under The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), where by their terms the rules apply for the duration of any investigation. Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019). Where a rule does not, on its face, apply for the duration of any investigation, a determination is made whether one or more legitimate justifications exist for requiring confidentiality even after an investigation is over. If legitimate justifications exist, a determination is then made whether those justifications outweigh the effect of requiring post-investigation confidentiality on employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights.
On December 17, 2019, in a 3-1 decision split along party lines, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) restored to employers the right to restrict employees from using company email systems for nonbusiness purposes. The decision, issued in Caesars Entertainment Corp., reverses the NLRB’s 2014 ruling in Purple Communications, which held that workplace rules prohibiting employee email use for union activity were presumptively invalid under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (Section 7). Because Section 7 applies to all employers, not just unionized ones, this NLRB ruling affects almost every U.S. employer that provides a corporate email system.
The National Labor Relations Board has reminded employers that they must tolerate a certain degree of heated discourse during a union organizing campaign before discipline or termination may be warranted.
In a decision that affects both union and non-union employers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has taken what is likely the first step toward reining in the expanded scope of what the Obama-era Board considered “protected, concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has narrowed the circumstances under which a complaint made by an individual employee is considered concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Alstate Maintenance, LLC, 367 NLRB No. 68 (Jan. 11, 2019).
May union organizers lawfully use their employer’s email system for union-related communications? This question has been asked and answered, asked again and answered differently, and is now being asked a third time. This week the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued an invitation for comment on rescinding or revising the current rule of law.
As most employers are aware, the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), established a new standard that significantly broadens the scope of rules, policies, and handbook provisions that lawfully may be maintained under the National Labor Relations Act. The General Counsel’s recent Memorandum GC 18-04 (Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing) provides important guidance about how the Board’s decision will affect many types of workplace rules, including taking on the challenging task of categorizing confidentiality rules as lawful or unlawful.
In The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the Board approved the maintenance of rules promoting “harmonious interactions and relationships,” and requiring civility in the workplace, as categorically lawful. “To the extent the Board in past cases has held that it violates the Act to maintain rules requiring employees to foster ‘harmonious interactions and relationships’ or to maintain basic standards of civility in the workplace, those cases are hereby overruled.”
Traditionally, employers rely on personnel policies and employee handbooks to communicate workplace expectations and benefits to employees. Earlier this decade, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) began aggressively scrutinizing those policies and concluding that many “could”—as opposed to would or did—interfere with employee-protections arising from the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). At the time, many well-intentioned policies fell short of the NLRB’s broad, subjective analysis, triggering policy revisions or deletions. Earlier this month, however, the NLRB General Counsel issued a new guidance document, Memorandum GC 18-04, confirming that the NLRB has switched from the earlier antagonistic approach to a more balanced analysis of standard personnel policies. The NLRB’s new approach will help employers communicate important workplace policies and reduce the threat of subjective unfair labor practice charges.
Executive Summary: In a 20-page memorandum dated June 6, 2018, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb issued guidance to the Regions on handbook rules in light of the Board’s decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017).
On June 6, 2018, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued a lengthy 20-page Memorandum (GC 18-04) providing detailed guidance regarding enforcement of “Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.”
Executive Summary: In a 2-1 decision, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) held that a hospital’s policy that required direct patient care providers to wear hospital branded badge reels violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act) because that policy was not specifically limited to immediate patient care areas. See Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Inc. and California Nurses Association/National Nurses Association (CAN/NNU), Case 21-CA-157007 (April 20, 2018).