• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Affiliate Login
  • Join Our Network
  • Affiliate News
  • Lawyer Directory
  • Newsletters
  • Contact Us
  • Our Feeds

Employment Law Information Network

All Things Labor and Employment Law

Get Our Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice
Daily Newsletter
Weekly Newsletter
California Newsletter
  • Federal Articles
  • State Articles
  • HR News
  • Trending
  • Human Resources
    • HR Guidebook
    • HR Policy Samples
    • Employment Contracts
  • Discussion Forums
  • About Us
Home > Federal Law Articles > Labor Law > Protected Concerted Activity

Articles Discussing Protected Concerted Activity Under The NLRA.

Off-Duty Employees Had Right to “Hang Out” on Employer’s Property to Publicize Dispute

May 30, 2017 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

xecutive Summary: An administrative law judge recently ruled that a Pacific Northwest fast food chain violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining a policy that prohibited off-duty employees from loitering or “hanging out” on store property, even though no employee was actually disciplined for violating the policy.

Labor Board Allows Evidence to Explain Employee Handbook Ban on Video Recording

May 16, 2017 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Jackson Lewis

The National Labor Relations Board has denied a motion for summary judgment by the NLRB’s General Counsel in a case involving Mercedes-Benz U.S. International Inc.’s maintenance of an employee handbook rule prohibiting the use of cameras and video recording devices without prior approval.

Second Circuit Upholds NLRB Order Finding Derogatory Facebook Post Protected Under the National Labor Relations Act

April 27, 2017 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

xecutive Summary: On April 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. Pier Sixty, LLC, enforced an order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that an employee did not lose the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by posting a derogatory comment about his supervisor on Facebook while encouraging his co-workers to vote for the union in an upcoming election and in concluding that the employer violated the Act by discharging the employee. The Court of Appeals stated that the employer “failed to meet its burden of showing that Perez’s [the employee’s] behavior was so egregious as to lose the protection of the NLRA under the Board’s ‘totality-of-the-circumstances’ test.”

What Can You Say? D.C. Circuit Speaks on Employee Confidentiality

April 4, 2017 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

In a ruling that affects both union and non-union employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently held in Banner Health System v. NLRB that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing information related to employees’ salaries and discipline. While this decision does not break new ground, it does provide employers with some guidance on how the D.C. Circuit will scrutinize efforts to maintain confidentiality surrounding HR investigations.

Employees, Political Advocacy and the NLRB – What Can an Employer Do?

February 14, 2017 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

In the first few weeks of the Trump Presidency, there have been numerous marches, protests and other forms of political advocacy expressing views both in support of and in opposition to the President’s various appointments, executive orders and other actions. Employers concerned about protests potentially planned for the next few months and political advocacy in general understandably have questions surrounding how political demonstrations may affect their workplaces.

Workplace Dress Codes – Auto Dealer Can’t Bar Workers from Wearing Message Pins, Court Affirms NLRB

July 7, 2016 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Jackson Lewis

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision that a Massachusetts automobile dealer’s policy banning the wearing of “message pins” violated union insignia protections under the National Labor Relations Act. Boch Imports, Inc., d/b/a Boch Honda v. NLRB, Nos. 15-1653, 15-1721 (1st Cir. June 17, 2016).

NLRB Member Criticizes Board’s Handbook Rule Review Standard

May 10, 2016 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Jackson Lewis

The legality of employer work rules continues to draw National Labor Relations Board scrutiny on a regular basis.

NLRA Protections for Derogatory Statements and Four-Letter Words Attacking a Company and its Managers

April 12, 2016 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

More and more employers, union and non-union alike, are getting ensnared in efforts by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) to aggressively expand employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”), to the detriment of employers. While employees have the express right under Section 7 of the Act “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” such as discussing their terms and conditions of employment or lodging complaints about the workplace, the NLRB continues to condone bad behavior as “protected behavior” so long as it is tangentially related to concerted activity under the Act.

Workplace Recording Bans and the NLRA: Are “No-Recording” Policies Still Allowed?

February 18, 2016 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

The ubiquity of smartphone applications (“apps”) that record audio and/or video – coupled with the risk of workplace discussions being uploaded to social media for all to hear – has led many employers to implement “no-recording” policies that prohibit employees from recording workplace interactions. It may come as a surprise to many employers, especially non-union employers, that a law from the 1930s, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) has recently been construed to generally prohibit broad bans on workplace recordings. In a recent decision addressing a company’s no-recording policy, the National Labor Relations Board’ (“NLRB” or “the Board”) held that such bans unlawfully interfere with the rights of employees — unionized or not — to engage in concerted activity regarding their terms and conditions of employment.

Second Circuit Upholds NLRB’s Triple Play Decision, Expanding Section 7 Protections for Employees’ Social Media Activity

October 30, 2015 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

Obscenities alone—even when viewed by an employer’s customers—do not deprive employees engaged in protected concerted activity of the National Labor Relations Act’s (“NLRA” or the “Act”) protections. So held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when recently affirming the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “the Board”) decision in Three D, LLC (Triple Play), 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014). The court also affirmed the Board’s decision to require an employer to meet a high standard of proof to justify terminating employees who make critical, and even false, statements about the employer while engaging in Section 7 activity in social media. Consequently, Triple Play has broadened employees’ ability to use social media to complain about work with impunity.

Court Upholds Employer’s Right to Prohibit “Inmate/Prisoner” Shirts at Work

August 3, 2015 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Jackson Lewis

An employer lawfully prohibited employees who interact with customers from wearing t-shirts printed with the words “Inmate” and “Prisoner” and containing black and white horizontal stripes, a federal appeals court has held, rejecting a 2-1 decision of the National Labor Relations Board. In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 11-1099 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the court held that “it was reasonable for AT&T to believe that the ‘Inmate/Prisoner’ shirts may harm AT&T’s relations with its customers or its public image,” thereby permitting the company to restrict the employees’ right to don union-messaged apparel.

D.C. Circuit Reverses NLRB’s Decision that AT&T Violated Employees’ Rights When It Suspended Employees for Wearing T-Shirt Disparaging the Company

July 21, 2015 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Executive Summary: It was probably not that surprising that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in Southern New England Telephone Company, 1356 NLRB No. 118 (2011). Of all the controversial decisions issued by the NLRB since President Obama was able to appoint a majority of the members on the five?member Board, none may have been perceived as more hostile to the business community than this decision.

Board Deems Employees’ Lengthy and Detailed Social Media Comments Unprotected

November 19, 2014 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

After years of NLRB decisions protecting employees’ profanity-laced tirades and outright threats against management in social media stream-of-consciousness posts, the Board recently said “no.” In Richmond District Neighborhood Center, 361 NLRB No. 74 (2014), the NLRB upheld the ALJ’s decision that two employees’ Facebook plan for insubordination veered into the land of “unprotected” activity under the NLRA.

Board Holds off on Major E-mail Use Pronouncement . . . For Now

October 7, 2014 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

In its long-awaited Purple Communications decision, on September 24, 2014, the NLRB reserved judgment on the most anticipated issue in the case: the legality of the employer’s electronic communications policy prohibiting use of e-mail for any nonbusiness reason, and the continuing validity of the NLRB’s 2007 Register Guard decision. The Board had previously invited briefing from both the parties and amicus regarding whether to overrule or modify Register Guard, and it was anticipated the Board would address that issue in the Purple Communications decision.

NLRB’s Recent Triple Play Decision Tackles Two Critical Social Media Issues for Employers

September 3, 2014 Filed Under: Protected Concerted Activity

Littler

With the intersection between cutting-edge social media and the Depression-era National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act) still relatively new, employers are looking for answers to some fundamental questions when it comes to regulating employees’ off-duty social media posts about work. The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or the Board) recent decision in Three D, LLC (Triple Play), 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014), answered two of those questions: (1) How far can employees go when posting social media content protected under Section 7 of the NLRA before their posts lose that protection?; and (2) Can employees who do nothing more than click on the ubiquitous thumbs-up icon to “Like” social media content claim the protections of Section 7 of the NLRA? In addition to answering these two critical questions, Triple Play provides useful guidance for employers on drafting a social media policy without raising a red flag for the NLRB.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Labor Law Article Index

  • Bargaining Units (16)
  • Collective Bargaining (25)
  • Coverage (NLRB) (38)
  • Decertification (1)
  • General (Labor Law) (416)
  • Labor Arbitration (3)
  • LMRDA (1)
  • NLRB (146)
  • Picketing (10)
  • Protected Concerted Activity (82)
  • Strikes (10)
  • Successorship (6)
  • Unfair Labor Practices (15)
  • Union Organizing (159)
  • Unions (22)
  • Weingarten Rights (12)

Site Search

Connect With Us!

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Article Calander

October 2023
SMTWTFS
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031 
« Sep    

Trending Content

  • Reminder: October 1 New Requirements For Considering Criminal History in Employment
  • Andrew Maunz Discusses Potential Impact of Federal Government Shutdown on EEOC Charges
  • Dismantling Gender Walls in the Construction Industry
  • Federal Court Upholds DOL’s Authority to Set Minimum-Salary Test for White-Collar Exemption
  • Nathan J. Milner Tackles Fraudulent New York Workers’ Comp Claims in CLM Magazine
  • Employers Beware – Deadline for Payment of Arbitration Fees Strictly Construed
  • Work Advice: Reentering a profession after years in a low-stress job
  • Drivers and Dealers Could Soon Feel Impact of U.A.W. Strikes
  • 3 Ways to Prepare for the Future of Work
  • Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will actually hurt women in the workplace

Connect With Us!

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Footer

Tags

ABC News (64) Axios (44) BBC (51) Benefits Pro (34) Bloomberg (418) Business Insider (96) CBS News (87) CNBC (240) CNN (137) EEOC (404) Entrepreneur (86) Evil HR Lady (633) Fast Company (161) Forbes (1114) Fortune (127) Fox News (36) Harvard Business Review (885) HR Dive (40) Inc. (120) Law.com (41) Littler (43) MarketWatch (33) MSN (141) NBC (62) NBC News (43) Newsweek (31) New York City (71) New York Post (68) New York Times (1101) NPR (167) Politico (53) Power At Work (66) Psychology Today (34) Reuters (170) Richmond Times Dispatch (32) Seattle Times (33) SHRM (289) The Guardian (81) TIME (38) USA Today (102) US News (81) Wall Street Journal (441) Washington Post (268) Yahoo! Finance (30) Yahoo! News (122)

Navigation

  • Federal Articles
  • State Articles
  • HR News
  • Trending
  • Human Resources
    • HR Guidebook
    • HR Policy Samples
    • Employment Contracts
  • Discussion Forums
  • About Us
Log In

Privacy Policy, Disclaimers & Copyright
elinfonet.com, LLC • P.O. Box 45, Chinchilla, PA 18410 • 570-301-6277 • info@elinfonet.com