Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 6, 2018, Peter. B. Robb, General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), provided employers with the first substantive guidance regarding workplace policies since the Board’s Boeing decision. General Counsel Memorandum 18-04 is a victory for employers as the Board seems to be returning to a common sense approach when evaluating workplace policies concerning on the job conduct, confidentiality, defamation, intellectual property, among other things.
Under Boeing, the Board established a new standard focused on the balance between an employees’ ability to exercise their Section 7 rights and the employers’ right to maintain discipline and productivity in the workplace. The Board broke down workplace policies into three categories:
- Category 1 – Rules that do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of protected rights, or the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.
- Category 2- Rules that the warrant individual scrutiny on a case-by-case basis and whether any adverse impact on protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
- Category 3 – Rules that that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit protected conduct, and the adverse impact on Section 7 rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. (https://www.employerlaborrelations.com/2017/12/19/the-boards-return-to-civility-and-common-sense-regarding-workplace-rules/)
This latest memorandum adds guidance to the three categories set out in Boeing.
Category 1 Policies that are Lawful to Maintain
- Civility rules – Rules that require courteousness in the workplace, that prohibit rude or unbusinesslike behavior and that prohibit an employee from disparaging another employee. These types of rules advance substantial employee and employer interests, including an employer’s responsibility to maintain a workplace free of harassment and violence.
- No photography/no recording rules – Rules that prohibit photography in the workplace and that forbid recording conversations, meetings and phone calls with co-workers, supervisors, and third parties unless such recordings are approved by the Company. These type of rules advance an employer’s interest in limiting recording and photography on Company property. Be advised however, employers still must ensure that a no recording policy passes legal muster under applicable state law.
- On the job conduct rules – Rules that prohibit insubordination, being uncooperative or otherwise engaging in conduct that does not support the employer’s goals and objectives. These type of rules allow an employer to prevent non-cooperation at work.
- Disruptive behavior rules – Rules that prohibit boisterous or other disruptive conduct. These type of rules allow an employer to prevent dangerous conduct or bad behavior and ensure safety and productivity.
- Rules protecting confidential, proprietary and customer information – Rules that prohibit the discussion and dissemination of confidential, proprietary or customer information. These types of rules allow an employer to protect confidential and proprietary information, as well as customer information.
- Rules against defamation or misrepresentation – Rules that prohibit defamatory messages and misrepresent the employer’s products, services, or employees. These types of also allow an employer to protect themselves, their reputation, and their employees from misrepresentation, defamation and slander.
- Rules against using an employer’s intellectual property – Rules that prohibit the use of Employer logos, trademark, or graphics without prior written approval.
- Rules that require authorization to speak for the Company – Rules that prohibit employees to comment on behalf of the employer and to respond to media request only through designated spokespersons. These types of rules allow an employer to designate who should speak on behalf of the employer.
- Rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment – Rules that prohibit disloyal conduct, conduct that is damaging to the employer, and conduct that competes with the employer and/or interferes with an employee’s judgment concerning the employer’s best interests. These type of rules allow an employer to prevent a conflict of interest, self-dealing or maintaining a financial interest in a competitor. These type of rules, when reasonably interpreted, have no meaningful impact on Section 7 rights.
Category 2 Policies Warranting Individualized Scrutiny
- Broad conflict-of-interest rules that do not specifically target self-enrichment and that do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union.
- Confidentiality rules that broadly encompass employer business or employee information, versus confidentiality rules specifically regarding customers and/or proprietary information.
- Rules that disparage or criticize the employer versus civility rules that bar the disparagement of employees.
- Rules that regulate the use of the employer’s name versus rules that regulate the use of the employer’s intellectual property.
- Rules that restrict speaking to the media or third parties versus rules that restrict speaking to the media on the employer’s behalf.
- Rules that ban off-duty conduct that might harm the employer versus rules that ban insubordination and other disruptive conduct while at work.
- Rules against making false or inaccurate statements versus rules against making defamatory statements.
Category 3 Policies that are Unlawful to Maintain
- Confidentiality rules about wages, benefits, and working conditions – The ability to freely discuss terms and conditions of employment is a cornerstone of Section 7 rights. There are no legitimate business justifications in banning employees from discussing wages or working conditions.
- Rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer – Employees have a right to join outside organizations, specifically unions. While employers have a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing nepotism, fraud, self-dealing, and maintaining a financial interest in a competitor, rules that prohibit membership in outside organizations or from participation in any voting concerning the employer unduly infringe upon Section 7 rights.
While the pendulum could swing back in a new administration, the Board’s return – at least for now – to allow employers to require employees to maintain a reasonable level of civility in the workplace is a refreshing victory for employers. Both the Boeing decision and General Counsel Memorandum 18-04 prove that the Board clearly understands that the prior Board standard laid out in Lutheran Heritage, which prohibited any rule that can reasonably be interpreted as covering Section 7 activity, was unduly burdensome, oppressive, and an operational hindrance.
Now’s a good time for employers to review their handbook policies. If you have any questions regarding your workplace’s handbook and social media policies or practices, please contact the authors, or another Seyfarth attorney.