Tag: NLRB

Shutdown Closes National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Operations

Barnes & Thornburg

As a result of the federal government shutdown, yesterday NLRB operations ground to a halt. Many practitioners and employers during the a.m. hours received contact from Board Agents and Board Lawyers indicating that pending investigations, petition processing and the like were on hold until after the shutdown ends.

The Board’s “Shutdown Plan” indicates that 1,600 of the Board’s 1,611 staff have been furloughed. All regional offices are closed and the only remaining staff are located in the Board’s main office in D.C. Even the Board’s website was shutdown and the resources posted online, including all Board cases, memos, and other guidance, became unavailable. Instead, visitors to the Board’s website were redirected to a landing page explaining “The National Labor Relations Board is currently closed due to a lapse in appropriated funds.”

government shutdown NLRB national labor relations board

The full effect of the shutdown on new and on-going NLRB cases is not completely clear.  The Federal Register Notice on the effect of the closure states that an extension of time to file any documents is granted sua sponte for all affected parties through the end of the shutdown.  However, the Board cannot grant extensions of time to the six-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act that applies to unfair labor practice charges.  The Federal Register Notice states that “the operation of Section 10(b) during an interruption in the Board’s normal operations is uncertain” and encourages effected parties to file their charges via fax, although they will presumably not be processed until after the shutdown concludes.  The Board’s website does provide that actions necessary “to prevent an imminent threat to the safety of human life or the protection of property may be undertaken” during the shutdown, although it is not clear what NLRB actions, if any, would fall into this category.

All ALJ hearings scheduled for this week have been postponed indefinitely, as well as all elections and election hearings scheduled through October 11. The Federal Register Notice provides that if the shutdown continues, additional hearings and elections will be postponed as well. Like the rest of the country affected by the shutdown, all practitioners and employers with business in front of the Board can do now is wait it out.

Article By:

 of

Picture This: The National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice Wants to Sue Employer for Issuing Social Media Policy with Photo/Video Ban

Michael Best Logohe National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice (the Division) recently recommended that the Board issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing its social media policy without first bargaining with two unions, and for maintaining a social media policy that included unlawful provisions. Although the Division analyzed several social media policy provisions, its criticism of two provisions in particular—a ban on using photo and video of company premises, and restrictions on employees’ use of company logos and trademarks—makes it very difficult for employers to protect their brands while at the same time complying with federal labor laws.

Giant Foods’ social media policy forbade employees from using company logos, trademarks, or graphics without prior approval from the company. The policy also prohibited employees from using photographs or video of the “Company’s premises, processes, operations, or products” without prior approval as well.

The Division concluded that these provisions were unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) should issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing them. As employers are becoming keenly aware, the NLRA safeguards employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. Such activity includes group discussions and some comments by individual employees that relate to their wages, hours, and other terms conditions of employment.

The Division concluded that banning employees from using company logos or trademarks was unlawful because: (1) employees should be allowed to use logos and trademarks in online communications, including electronic leaflets or pictures of picket signs with the employer’s logo; and (2) those labor-related interests did not raise the concerns that intellectual property laws were passed to protect, such as a business’ interest in guarding its trademarks from being used by competitors selling inferior products.

Additionally the Division concluded that restricting employees from using photo and video of company premises unlawfully prevented them from sharing information about participation in protected concerted activities, such as snapping a picture of a picket line.

Unfortunately, the Board’s expansive view will likely hamper companies’ ability to prevent damage to their brand and reputation.  Not allowing employers to ban the taking of videos and photos on their premises, or restricting the use of company logos/trademarks could lead to public relations nightmares such as the one Subway Foods recently endured after it was revealed that an employee posted a graphic picture on Instagram of his genitalia on a sub, with the tag line “I will be your sandwich artist today.”

Given the prevalence of cell phones with photo and video capabilities, and the ease of uploading photos and videos to the internet, a company that cannot control its employees’ use of those devices on their premises will be one bad employee decision away from public embarrassment.

What else can be gleaned from the Giant Foods Advice Memorandum? That the Board’s General Counsel will continue to prod employers to eliminate blanket bans on certain kinds of employee conduct from their social media policies and replace those bans with provisions that include specific examples of what employee conduct the policy prohibits. The Board and its General Counsel have previously found social media policies that restricted employee use of confidential information and complaints about an employer’s labor practices as unlawful; Giant Foods makes clear that the agency is also scrutinizing other kinds of policy provisions that potentially could infringe on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activities.

Accordingly, employers should review their policies with counsel so that they can tailor them to restrict employee conduct that will damage the company and its brand, but not be “reasonably” read to restrict employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities.

Social Media & Emerging Employer Issues: Are You Protected?

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On June 13, 2013, Business First of Louisville and McBrayer hosted the second annual Social Media Seminar. The seminar’s precedent, Social Media: Strategy and Implementation, was offered in 2012 and was hugely successful. This year’s proved to be no different. Presented by Amy D. Cubbage and Cynthia L. Effinger, the seminar focused on emerging social media issues for employers. If you missed it, you missed out! But don’t worry, a seminar recap is below and for a copy of the PowerPoint slides click here.

McBrayer: If a business has been designated an entity that must comply with HIPAA, what is the risk of employees using social media?

Cubbage: Employers are generally liable for the acts of their employees which are inconsistent with HIPAA data privacy and security rules. As employees’ use of social networking sites increase, so does the possibility of a privacy or security breach. An employee may be violating HIPAA laws simply by posting something about their workday that is seemingly innocent. For instance, a nurse’s Facebook status that says, “Long day, been dealing with a cranky old man just admitted into the ER” could be considered a HIPAA violation and expose an employer to sanctions and fines.

 

McBrayer: Should businesses avoid using social media so that they will not become the target of social media defamation?

Effinger: In this day and age it is hard, if not impossible, for a business to be successful without some use of social media. There is always the risk that someone will make negative comments about an individual or a business online, especially when anonymity is an option. Employers need to know the difference between negativity and true defamation. Negative comments or reviews are allowed, perhaps even encouraged, on some websites. If a statement is truly defamatory, however, then a business should make efforts to have the commentary reported and removed. The first step should always be to ask the internet service provider for a retraction of the comment, but legal action may sometimes be required.

 

McBrayer: When does a negative statement cross the line and become defamation?

Effinger: It is not always easy to tell. First, a statement must be false. If it is true, no matter how damaging, it is not defamation. The same goes for personal opinions. Second, the statement must cause some kind of injury to an individual or business, such as by negatively impacting a business’s sales, to be defamation.

 

McBrayer: Can employers ever prevent employees from “speaking” on social media?

Effinger: Employers should always have social media policies in place that employees read, sign, and abide by. While it is never really possible to prevent employees from saying what they wish on social media sites, some of their speech may not be protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause.

 

McBrayer: What constitutes “speech” on the internet? Is “liking” a group on Facebook speech? How about posting a YouTube video?

Effinger: This is a problem that courts and governmental employment agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board, are just starting to encounter. There is no bright-line rule for what constitutes “speech,” but it is safe to say that anything an employee does online that is somehow communicated to others (even “liking” a group or posting a video) qualifies.

 

McBrayer: Since a private employer is not bound by the First Amendment, can they terminate employees for social media actions with no repercussions?

Effinger: No! In fact, it could be argued that private employees are afforded more protection for what they say online than public employees. While a private employer has no constitutional duty to allow free speech, the employer is subject to state and federal laws that may prevent them from disciplining an employee’s conduct. As a general rule, private employees have the right to communicate in a “concerted manner” with respect to “terms and conditions” of their employment. Such communication is protected regardless of whether it occurs around the water cooler or, let’s say, on Twitter.

 

McBrayer: It seems like the best policy would be for employers to prohibit employees from discussing the company in any negative manner. Is this acceptable?

Effinger: It is crucial for companies to have social media policies and procedures, but crafting them appropriately can be tricky. There have been several instances where the National Labor Relations Board has reviewed a company’s policy and found its overly broad restrictions or blanket prohibitions illegal. Even giant corporations like General Motors and Target have come under scrutiny for their social media policies and been urged to rewrite them so employees are given more leeway.

 

McBrayer: Is social media a company asset?

Cubbage: Yes! Take a moment to consider all of the “followers”, “fans”, or “connections” that your business may have through its social media accounts. These accounts provide a way to constantly interact with and engage clients and customers. Courts have recently dealt with cases where a company has filed suit after a rogue employee stole a business account in some manner, for instance by refusing to turn over an account password. Accounts are “assets,” even if not tangible property.

 

McBrayer: What is the best way for an employer to protect their social media accounts?

Cubbage: Social media accounts should first be addressed in a company’s operating agreement. Who gets the accounts in the event the company splits? There are additional steps every employer should take, such as including a provision in social media policies that all accounts are property of the business. Also, there should always be more than one person with account information, but never more than a few. Treat social media passwords like any other confidential business information – they should only be distributed on a “need to know” basis.

Article By:

 of

 

Big Box Retailers and Major Fast Food Chains Targeted by Unions and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Michael Best Logo

The NLRB Rules Against Target

There are more than 1,750 Target stores nationwide, and none have been organized by a union. This fact was not lost on the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) when, on April 26, 2013, it affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge that Target Corporation (Target)’s no-solicitation/no-distribution policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and ordered Target to amend its policies nationwide. The consolidated cases, known as Target Corporation and United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500, 359 NLRB No. 103 (2013), originated when the UFCW filed charges with the Board following an unsuccessful organizing campaign at a Target store in Valley Stream, New York.

The key issue addressed by the Board was whether Target maintained a no-solicitation/no-distribution policy that violated employees’ Section 7 rights under the Act. Target’s policy prohibited solicitation on the store’s premises at all times if it was for “personal profit,” “commercial purposes,” or “a charitable organization that isn’t part of the Target Community Relations program and isn’t designed to enhance the company’s goodwill and business.” The Board focused on the ban on solicitation “for commercial purposes,” finding that Target failed to define the phrase or provide illustrative examples to clarify what it meant. Because the phrase was undefined, the Board found that Target employees could have interpreted the phrase to ban solicitation and distribution on behalf of unions, which would violate the Act.[1]  

Ultimately, the Board ordered Target to rescind nationwide its no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and to:

[f]urnish all current employees nationwide with inserts for their current employee handbooks that (1) advise that the unlawful rules listed above have been rescinded, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful rules; or publish and distribute to all current employees nationwide revised employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful rules, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules.

The Board also set aside the union’s unsuccessful election attempt and ordered a new election to take place under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director.

Is Walmart The Next Target?

Walmart has more than 4,500 retail locations in the United States, and like Target, none are unionized. In recent months, the UFCW-backed group OUR Walmart has been advocating for strikes in several locations. On May 28, 2013, several media outlets reported a new round of strikes coordinated by OUR Walmart in advance of Walmart’s June 7, 2013 annual shareholder meeting.

In addition to the strike efforts, the UFCW, OUR Walmart, and Walmart have filed dozens of NLRB charges against each other in 2013. In May, the labor-backed group filed a new round of charges with the NLRB. Meanwhile, Walmart has filed lawsuits against the UFCW and OUR Walmart in Florida and California state courts in recent months alleging trespass and unlawful organizing activity on Walmart property.

Though the Board is currently under scrutiny based on recent court decisions invalidating the President’s recess appointments, the charges against Walmart provide it with another opportunity to make a nationwide statement against a non-union employer. Given the Board’s recent penchant for union activism, do not be surprised if it takes a close look at Walmart’s policies and practices in the coming months.

The Fast Food Industry

On May 15, 2013 hundreds of Milwaukee fast food workers walked off their jobs and launched a one-day strike demanding a raise to $15 per hour and the right to unionize without intimidation or retaliation. This was the fifth such strike in six weeks, following strikes in St. Louis and Detroit the week before, and in New York and Chicago in April. In each of those strikes, local groups organized fast food workers with support from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation’s largest unions. All of these strikes were preceded or followed by the filing of a slew of NLRB charges against the employers, alleging myriad unfair labor practices.

These strikes share several common characteristics. Each was a one-day strike by fast food workers, backed by ad hoc coalitions of unions and community groups. In the case of the Milwaukee strike, the organizing group was called “Wisconsin Citizen Action,” and the campaign was called “Raise Up, MKE.” The St. Louis campaign was called “STL Can’t Survive on $7.35,” and Detroit’s was called “D15.” These strikes have all been part of “minority unionism” campaigns, where the focus is on staging actions by a minority of the workforce designed to inspire their co-workers, rather than waiting until they have gained support from a majority of the workers. The short duration of the strike is calculated to minimize the risk that striking workers will be replaced by their employers after walking off.

The spread of these fast food strikes, as well as strikes by non-union workers in retailers like Walmart, comes amid a long-term decline in strikes in the U.S. Both the fast food and retail industries are overwhelmingly not unionized. The strategy pursued by the groups organizing these strikes is thus one of spectacle or demonstration, calling attention to the wages and working conditions of the employees in these industries.

[1] Oddly, the Board overruled a second finding by the Administrative Law Judge that a policy instructing employees to report unknown persons seen loitering the parking lot also violated Section 7 of the Act. The Board noted it would not conclude that a reasonable employee would read a rule to violate Section 7 simply because the rule could be interpreted that way.

Article By:

NLRB Appointments are “Constitutionally Invalid”

Dinsmore-2c-print NEW

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated the appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board who were designated on January 4, 2012. On January 25, 2013, the Court issued its ruling in Noel Canning v. NLRB, et al. Docket No. 12-1115.  http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ 13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf. In Noel Canning, the employer sought to prohibit enforcement of a February 8, 2012 NLRB decision concluding it violated the National Labor Relations Act.

The Court granted the Petition of Noel Canning on the basis that the NLRB lacked a sufficient quorum of members when it reached its decision. In February 2012, the NLRB was putatively staffed with a full complement of five members. However, three of those members were appointed by the President, without confirmation by the Senate, on January 4, 2012. The NLRB maintained the appointments were legitimate “recess” appointments made while the Senate was out of session. The Petitioner argued that, in fact, the Senate was in pro forma session and as such, the President had no constitutional authority to make “recess appointments” of the NLRB members.

The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Petitioner that the President’s appointments were “constitutionally invalid.” As such, the Board did not have a “quorum for the conduct of business” on the date of its decision as only two members of the NLRB were properly seated.

The impact of the decision is likely substantial. In an appearance before the Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 1, 2012, Dinsmore Labor Practice Group Chair Mark Carter testified, that if the recess appointments on January 4, 2012 were determined to be improper “every administrative decision and every administrative rule or regulation implemented by the National Labor Relations Board will be subject to appeal or attack.” http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-1-2012_Carter-Full.pdf.

Carter testified that if the appointments were invalidated, as they have been, “the actions of the NLRB will be ultra vires” and every decision and regulation will be subject to attack. The NLRB has been active both in the arenas of decision-making and regulatory action over the past year. If the decision of the D.C. Circuit is upheld, the decisions of the Agency since January 4, 2012 may have no mandatory impact on employers, unions or employees.

The NLRB reacted to the decision on the afternoon of January 25 by insisting that the remaining recess appointees, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block, will continue to perform their statutory duties and issue decisions along with Chairman Mark Pearce. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R – CA) called upon the NLRB to “take the responsible course and cease issuing further opinions until a constitutionally-sound quorum can be established.” Chairman Issa stated “(t)he unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down.”

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

NLRB Now Permits Front Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement in Board Settlements

The National Law Review recently published an article by John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding A Recent NLRB Ruling:

Barnes & Thornburg

 

The National Labor Relations Board “NLRB” has traditionally refused to include the concept of front pay in lieu of reinstatement in formal Board settlements. As such, if an employer was interested in resolving an NLRB case that involved employee terminations, but not interested in bringing those terminated employees back to work, the only avenue was a non-Board settlement. That may change based on a new guidance memo the Acting General Counsel issued Jan. 9, 2013.

Noting that most agreements involving waivers of reinstatement in exchange for payment of front pay “are entirely non-Board” settlements, and that Agency policy should favor Board settlements, not discourage them, the AGC “decided to modify existing policy to permit Agency settlements to include front pay.” The Board’s Case Handling Manual will be revised to reflect this change. The updated manual instructs that offers of front pay in lieu of reinstatement be communicated to alleged discriminatees, but without pressuring them to waive reinstatement. The Region is “serving only as a conduit for the proposal” pursuant to the updated language in the Manual.

The memo also requires that waiver of reinstatement be in writing, unless otherwise authorized by Operations-Management in a particular case. The full memo with updated language in the Case Handling Manual can be found here.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB Mandates Wholesale Changes to Costco’s Social Media Policy

The National Law Review recently published an article by David M. Katz of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding the NLRB and Costco:

 

There is no denying that the NLRB has recently devoted significant attention to employee’s use of social media.  Since August 2011, the Board’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued three reports outlining his view of how the NLRA applies to employers’ social media policies and employees’ social media postings.  Click here and here for our commentary on those GC reports and for links to the reports themselves.  Until earlier this month, however, the Board itself had not weighed in on social media policies.

On September 7, the NLRB issued a Decision and Order (which you can access here) invalidating Costco Wholesale Corporation’s electronic posting rule, found in its employee handbook, that prohibited employees from making statements that “damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation.”  With little analysis, the Board found Costco’s policy overly broad, concluding that “the rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their [NLRA] Section 7 rights,” as employees would “reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity.”  Section 7 of the NLRA provides to all employees—unionized and non-unionized—the right to engage in protected “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”  Such protected concerted activity includes, for example, the right to protest an employer’s treatment of its employees or other working conditions.

The Costco decision adopts the legal reasoning set forth in the three GC reports, much of which is based upon traditional principles developed prior to the advent of social media as we know it.  And, similar to the three GC reports, the Board’s decision in Costco fails to articulate any social media-specific criteria to assist employers in crafting policies that do not inhibit employee rights under the NLRA,  although it does offer a couple of hints.

First, the Board distinguished prior cases addressing rules prohibiting employee “conduct that is malicious, abusive or unlawful,” including rules concerning employees’ “verbal abuse,” “profane language,” “harassment,” and “conduct which is injurious, offensive, threatening, intimidating, coercing, or interfering with” other employees. Criticizing Costco’s electronic posting rule, the Board stated that its social media policy “does not present accompanying language that would tend to restrict its application.”  If Costco had been more specific, then, by providing examples of prohibited conduct, its policy may have passed muster.  .  In doing so, employers should focus on the types of electronic postings that they truly seek to prohibit, such as defamatory, harassing or other egregious comments, or disclosure of employer trade secrets, proprietary information, or co-workers’ private information.

The second hint dropped by the Board in Costco is the suggestion that an employer’s inclusion of a savings clause or disclaimer may protect the employer from allegations that a social media policy inhibits employees’ protected concerted activities.  The Board concluded that Costco’s “broad” prohibition against making statements that “damage the Company” or “damage any person’s reputation” “clearly encompasses concerted communications,” but continued by noting that “there is nothing in the rule that even arguably suggests that protected communications are excluded from the broad parameters of the rule.”  This statement signals that the Board may have found Costco’s electronic posting rule acceptable had the rule included language specifically exempting protected concerted activities under the NLRA, which is in contrast to the GC’s position on such savings clauses.

As we noted in our previous postings on the subject, in light of the Board’s clear stance on social media policies (now confirmed in its Costco decision), and its application to both unionized and non-unionized employers, we recommend that all employers rigorously review their social media policies to ensure that they do not contain “broad” prohibitions that would not survive NLRB scrutiny.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

The NLRB at it Again: Blanket Rules Prohibiting Employees from Discussing Ongoing Investigations Violates NLRA Absent “Legitimate and Substantial Justification”

An article by Eric E. Hobbs of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP regarding The NLRB recently appeared in The National Law Review:

 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) on July 30, 2012, held that a blanket rule prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing internal investigations – for example, of employee misconduct, harassment, or criminal conduct – violates the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) absent “legitimate and substantial justification”.

In Banner Health System, the employer’s human resources consultant, as a matter of course, had asked employees involved in internal investigations not to discuss the investigation’s details, the employees’ roles or what had been said during the consultant’s interviews while the investigation continued. In particular, she had asked employee James Navarro, whom she had interviewed as a part of an insubordination investigation, to maintain his silence. Navarro then filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer, alleging that the consultant’s request had violated his rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects, among other things, communications between employees regarding terms and conditions of employment.

The NLRB found merit to the charge and issued a complaint, which went to hearing before one of the NLRB’s administrative law judges. The judge found the employer’s conduct not to have violated Navarro’s Section 7 rights because the consultant’s request had been justified by the employer’s concern with protecting the integrity of its insubordination investigation.

The NLRB reversed its judge’s decision on that point. It held that, in order for an employer to justify a prohibition against employee communications regarding ongoing investigation, the employer must demonstrate the existence of a “substantial business justification” that outweighs the employees’ Section 7 rights. And a general concern with protecting the integrity of an investigation, according to the Board, was not substantial enough to meet the bar.

The Board gave examples of justifications that might qualify as sufficiently substantial to outweigh employees’ Section 7 rights: If a witness needed protection; if the employer reasonably believed that evidence might be destroyed or fabricated; or if maintenance of silence was necessary to prevent a “cover-up.” Notably, the Board did not say that those three circumstances were examples only, rather than an exclusive list of potentially adequate justifications. Our best educated guess is that they are examples only.

We do not have to guess, however, that the NLRB would find a blanket prohibition against communication by employees among themselves during the course of an ongoing employer investigation to be unlawful. In fact, a requirement of such silence in any case the employer cannot show substantial business justification for it will be found by the Board to violate the employer’s workers’ Section 7 rights.

The Board’s decision is not without support by its own precedent. In the late 1980s, the NLRB had held that it was unlawful under Section 7 of the Act for an employer to direct an employee who complained of sexual harassment not to talk to anyone other than her supervisors about the matter. The Board found that “anyone” could include the employee’s union representatives and that such a prohibition ran afoul of the NLRA.

The Banner Health System decision, however, greatly expands that principle. Employers now must be careful whenever directing employees not to communicate among themselves about, or to maintain as “confidential” all matters related to, an internal investigation. Protection of the integrity of the investigation is not going to be a sufficiently substantial reason for imposing such a prohibition, and the burden will be on the employer to establish that it had a “substantial business justification” for the prohibition that outweighed its employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.

In the event you believe it necessary to maintain the confidentiality of an internal investigation, we suggest that you take several steps:

  • First, make sure you are able to articulate a significant concern particular to the investigation that a failure by any witness to maintain confidentiality will result in serious, negative consequences. For instance, where employer, employee or third-party safety might be jeopardized, where a target of or participant in the investigation might become violent, where the target of or participant in the investigation might threaten or manipulate other witnesses, or where evidence might be destroyed or lost.
  • Second, be clear to limit your request for confidentiality. Limit it explicitly to confidentiality of the interview conducted, the facts known to the individual, his or her impressions and opinions, the existence of the investigation, and other of its elements. Make clear that the confidentiality is to be maintained only during the pendency of the investigation, but not afterwards. And, if possible, articulate that the confidentiality is to be maintained not just among employees but also among friends and family members.
  • Finally, do not threaten to discipline employees for breaches of confidentiality regarding the investigation at the time you communicate your confidentiality request, unless the investigation is one that clearly and “substantially” justifies such a threat.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues

The National Law Review recently published an article, NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues, by Keith J. Brodie of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

 

 

Another Obama recess appointment to the NLRB is drawing Congressional scrutiny in recent days, in a continuation of the behind-the-scenes politicking between the Administration and certain Congressional members.  As we have reported previously, Republican Board Member Terrance Flynn resigned in May in the wake of allegations of inappropriate communications during his time as Chief Counsel for Board Member Brian Hayes.   Now Senator Orin Hatch, a prominent Utah Republican, has set his sights on Democratic Board Member Richard Griffin.  Prior to being appointed to the Board by President Obama in January, Mr. Griffin was General Counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

In a letter sent to Mr. Griffin on July 18, Senator Hatch raises questions about Mr. Griffin’s actions during his time as General Counsel for the union, specifically requesting information about his role in defending IUOE union officials accused of fraud and extortion, an area that he claims would have been investigated in detail at Mr. Griffin’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate, if not for President Obama’s actions in appointing Mr. Griffin as a recess appointment.  It remains to be seen whether Member Griffin will actually respond to Senator Hatch’s questions.  But Senator Hatch’s letter illustrates that the Board is likely to continue to be closely scrutinized by Congress, especially as the election season progresses, and that the political “tit for tat” is likely to continue.

Senator Hatch’s letter to Mr. Griffin is available here (PDF).

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Releases Another Report on Social Media Policies

An article by Steve L. Hernández of Barnes & Thornburg LLP recently had an article regarding NLRB’s Social Media Policies in The National Law Review:

On May 30, 2012. Lafe Solomon, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (the “AGC”), released a third report on social media cases brought before the Board. This report deals with seven different cases involving social media policies, covering topics such as the use of social media and electronic technologies, confidentiality, privacy, protection of employer information, intellectual property, and contact with the media and government agencies. In the first six policies reviewed, the AGC concluded that at least some of the provisions in the employers’ policies and rules were overbroad and, accordingly, unlawful, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Importantly, the Board found that the savings clauses in these otherwise unlawful policies did not save the policies. Only the final social media policy reviewed by the AGC was found to be entirely lawful. In finding the final reviewed policy lawful, the AGC pointed to the policies substantial use of examples of allowed and proscribed behavior. Specifically, the AGC stated that “rules that clarify and restrict their scope by including examples of clearly illegal or unprotected conduct, such that they could not reasonably be construed to cover protected activity, are not unlawful.”

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP