Category: Labor & Employment

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Back to School for Michigan Employers–Minimum Wage Increase

Barnes Thornburg

As the kiddies get ready to go back to school, employers too should freshen up on a few items that are about to change in Michigan, including the minimum wage. Back on May 28, we reported on this blog that Michigan had passed The Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, by which the minimum wage will increase from $7.40 to $9.25 per hour over the next four years. The first incremental increase takes effect on September 4, when the minimum wage will increase to $8.15 per hour. So, if you haven’t done so already, please mark September 4 on your calendar.

ARTICLE BY

Kelly Petrocelli
 
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

EEOC Signals Intent to Tighten Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Pregnancy-Related Discrimination

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

Noting that it continues to see “a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination,” and that its “investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (“Enforcement Guidance”). The full text of the Enforcement Guidance is available here. 

The EEOC’s issuance of the Enforcement Guidance, which focuses primarily on the fundamental requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), while also touching on the pregnancy-related protections provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), sends a strong signal to employers that their employment decisions and policies will now be more intently scrutinized for actionable pregnancy discrimination.1

The Enforcement Guidance focuses on the issue of equal access to benefits – in particular, to light duty, leave, and health insurance. With regard to light duty, employers may not treat employees whose capacity is limited by pregnancy, or a pregnancy-related condition, any differently than they do employees who are similarly limited, but for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

As for leave, employers should be cognizant of the following. First, they may not force an employee to take leave because she is or has been pregnant, so long as she is able to perform her job. Second, the PDA mandates that employers permit women with pregnancy-related physical limitations to take leave on the same terms and conditions as employees who are similarly limited for other reasons. Finally, while leave related to pregnancy-related medical conditions will, necessarily, be limited to female employees, leave to bond with or care for a newborn must be extended to male and female employees on an equal basis.

With regard to health insurance, employers should note that an employer-provided health insurance benefit plan must cover pregnancy-related costs to the same extent it covers medical costs unrelated to pregnancy. This required symmetry of coverage must extend to costs stemming from an insured employee’s pre-existing pregnancy. Additionally, an employer may be in violation of the PDA if the health insurance it provides does not cover prescription contraceptives, regardless of whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes. The Enforcement Guidance does not address whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, certain employers may be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.

The guidance also addresses the obligations under the ADA to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations to address pregnancy-related limitations. Such accommodations may include:

  • redistributing marginal or nonessential functions – such as occasional lifting – that a pregnant worker cannot perform;

  • modifying workplace policies, such as to afford a pregnant employee more frequent breaks; 

    • allowing a pregnant employee placed on bed rest to work remotely (where

      feasible); or

    • granting leave to a pregnant employee in excess of what the employer typically provides under its sick leave policy.

      The final section of the Enforcement Guidance provides “best practices” that employers can utilize to reduce their exposure to pregnancy-related liability under the PDA and ADA. The EEOC suggests, as a general matter, that employers should:

    • develop, disseminate and enforce a strong policy based on the requirements of the PDA and ADA;

    • train managers and employees regularly about their rights and responsibilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions;

    • conduct employee surveys and review employment policies to identify and correct any policies or practices that may disadvantage women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, or that may perpetuate the effects of historical discrimination in the organization;

    • respond to pregnancy discrimination complaints efficiently and effectively; and

  • protect applicants and employees from retaliation.

    In light of the EEOC’s heightened emphasis on PDA and ADA enforcement, employers should consult counsel before undertaking employment actions that may implicate pregnancy-related protections under the PDA or ADA, and to evaluate whether revisions to existing employment policies are needed to limit exposure to pregnancy- related liability. 

ARTICLE BY

David I. Rosen
Galit Kierkut
Charles H. Kaplan
Damon Werner Silver
 
OF
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

It Depends: The Top 3 Inherently Gray Areas of Employment Law

Barnes Thornburg

Fact-specific.

 Case by case.

 These are just two of the terms that stand for one of the frustrating (for employers) truths of many areas of employment law:  there are few black and white answers. There are endless shades of gray, and in honor of this week’s letter of the law (G), we recognize three common gray areas and some specific questions that must be asked when addressing situations under each. The fact that there are so many questions that need to be answered under each explains why they are gray areas!

The Letter G

1. Is a noncompete agreement enforceable?

  • What duties did the employee perform for the previous employer?

  • What duties is the employee performing for the new employer?

  • Did the employee engage in any underhanded behavior while still employed by the previous employer (such as copying confidential documents)?

  • What have been the previous employer’s practices and track record in enforcing noncompetes in the past?

  • What state’s law does the agreement say will apply?

  • What state is the employee located in now?

  • Does the contract specify where any disputes must be litigated?

2. Does an employer have to provide a particular reasonable accommodation under the disability discrimination laws?

  • What efforts have been made to communicate with the employee about the situation?

  • Has the employee been cooperative in responding to inquiries?

  • Do you have a medical assessment of the employee’s ability to perform his/her job?

  • Do you trust that assessment (or do we think the physician’s assistant filled it out the way the employer wanted him/her to)?

  • How unique are the employee’s job duties?

  • What are the job duties?

  • Which job duties do you thing are not being adequately performed?

  • Do you question the employee’s efforts in attempting to work, or do you think the employee is to any degree malingering?

3. Is a worker an independent contractor or an employee?

  • Is there any written agreement with the worker?

  • Are there are other workers performing the same or similar tasks, and are they considered employees or contractors?

  • How much direction is the worker receiving from the company on the details of performing tasks?

  • Does the worker provide services for other companies?

  • Is the worker full time or close to it for your company?

  • Does the worker provide any or all of the tools need to perform his/her work?

  • How long has the worker been working for your company?

These issues are like snowflakes. With so many questions (and these are not intended to be exhaustive lists), no two sets of answers will be exactly alike. That can be frustrating, because it is easier to administer rules with clearer thresholds: Two weeks of vacation. No flip flops at work. The work day is 8:30 to 5:00 with a half hour lunch break at noon. Those rules are usually pretty easy. Like it or not, though, what employment lawyers and employers spend most of their time on are the snowflakes, and carefully working through the situations to manage them as cost-effectively as possible.

What gray areas are you spending your time on this week?

ARTICLE BY

William A. Nolan
 
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

“STOP”: Four Tips For Document Preservation When Facing Potential Litigation

In today’s digital environment, it is crucial that employers act fast when faced with a suit (or the threat of suit) by an employee or ex-employee. When potential litigation is on the horizon, the first step should always be to contact legal counsel. The next step should protecting documentation that might be relevant to the dispute. Keep in mind this acronym to make sure you are following that right steps for documentation preservation:

document preservationSearch for employees that might possess information pertaining to the dispute. This might include supervisors, managers, or people who shared a workspace with the claimant, but it might also include others not under the direct supervision of the company, such as independent contractors or consultants that worked with the claimant.

Think about all sources of information – smart phones, tablets, cloud-based servers, thumb drives, work email accounts, etc. Once the sources are identified, consider whether you have and can maintain access to them. In some cases, it may require notifying the claimant that he must turn over password information or relinquish his work-issued devices, but it is highly suggested you contact legal counsel before proceeding with this step.

Order a litigation hold on relevant information. Instruct employees to not destruct, forward or edit the relevant documentation in any way. In-house destruction procedures (such as shredding or the automatic email deletion) should be cancelled until further notice from counsel. Litigation hold instructions should be made in writing and provide explicit instructions. The instructions should identify the type of materials and date ranges that are subject to the hold. A litigation hold should also identify to whom questions or concerns about the hold can be directed.

Present all information to counsel. He or she will then determine exactly what information needs to be preserved and for how long. Do not think that you, as an employer, know what information is important. By getting rid of documentation, even without ill intent, you may be hurting your ability to present a defense to the claims.

No employer likes facing employee-related litigation, but it is important to “STOP” and take time to ensure document preservation in the wake or threat of a suit.

Department of State Releases September 2014 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

The bulletin shows continued forward movement in the EB-2 India category while the cutoff dates in most other employment-based categories remain unchanged.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its September 2014 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the September 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

After several months of significant movement in both directions, the September Visa Bulletin shows no movement in any of the employment-based categories other than continued forward movement in the EB-2 India and EB-3 Philippines categories. Such continued forward movement in the EB-2 India category cannot be guaranteed; once significant demand in this category occurs, the cutoff date is likely to once again retrogress.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance significantly in September.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date of January 22, 2009 for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will advance by slightly more than three months to May 1, 2009. The cutoff date of October 8, 2009 for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will remain unchanged. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date of November 8, 2003 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will remain unchanged. The cutoff date of November 1, 2008 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will also remain unchanged. The cutoff date of June 1, 2010 for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines will advance by 10 months to April 1, 2011. The cutoff date of April 1, 2011 for applicants chargeable to Mexico and the Rest of the World will remain unchanged.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: November 1, 2008 (no movement)
India: November 8, 2003 (no movement)
Mexico: April 1, 2011 (no movement)
Philippines: April 1, 2011 (forward movement of 10 months)
Rest of the World: April 1, 2011 (no movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to these categories. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through September 2014.

China

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of October 8, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to October 8, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

India

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 22, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of May 1, 2009, reflecting forward movement of 99 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to May 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

The September Visa Bulletin notes that the use of potentially “otherwise unused” employment-based visa numbers prescribed by section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has allowed the cutoff date in the EB-2 India category to advance rapidly in recent months. The Visa Bulletin warns that continued forward movement of this cutoff date in upcoming months cannot be guaranteed, and no assumptions should be made until the dates are formally announced. Once there is a significant increase in demand in this category, it will be necessary to retrogress the cutoff date, possibly as early as November, to hold numbers within the fiscal year 2015 annual limit. 

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 1, 2008 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to China. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to November 1, 2008 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

India

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 8, 2003 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to November 8, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

Rest of the World

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 1, 2011 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the Rest of the World. The September Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this cutoff date. This means that only applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to April 1, 2011 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 15, 2011 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 22, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 404 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to April 22, 2012 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

The August Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of May 1, 2012 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The September Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 245 days. This means that worldwide, F2A applicants with a priority date prior to January 1, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in September 2014.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the September 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian
Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Malcolm K. Goeschl
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
 
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Asserting Franchisor Can Be Jointly Liable With Its Franchisees

Schiff Hardin Law Firm

Earlier this week, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Richard F. Griffin, authorized the issuance of multiple complaints which include allegations that a franchisor, McDonald’s, USA, LLC, could be liable as ajoint employer with its franchisees for violations of theNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The text of the General Counsel’s authorization is available here.

Since 2012, McDonald’s, USA, LLC and its franchisees have been named in 181 unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB. In a memorandum issued to the Regional Directors, the General Counsel noted that 43 of those charges were found to have merit, while the remaining charges either were found to have no merit or are pending further investigation. The General Counsel’s action authorizes the regions in which the charges were filed to issue administrative complaints naming McDonald’s USA, LLC and its franchisees as respondents if the parties are unable to reach settlement in the 43 cases that have been found to have merit.

The authorization comes on the heels of an amicus brief filed by the General Counsel in June in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., urging the Board to adopt a new standard for determining joint-employer status. Under the current standard, the NLRB analyzes whether alleged joint employers share the ability to control or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984). Essential terms and conditions of employment include hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction of employees. Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). The putative joint employers’ control over these employment matters must be direct and immediate.

In the amicus brief, the General Counsel argued that the Board’s current standard for determining joint-employer status is significantly narrower than the traditional standard and ignores Congress’s intent that the term “employer” be construed broadly. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard that accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including how putative joint employers structure their commercial dealings. Under the proposed test, joint-employer status would exist if one of the entities wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence.

The NLRB has not yet decided whether to adopt the General Counsel’s proposed standard, and the Browning-Ferris case is currently pending before the Board.

Implications and Recommendations

Although the General Counsel’s action has sparked a flurry of debate over the proper test for determining joint-employer status, it remains unclear whether the NLRB will accept his position. If the NLRB decides to adopt a new joint-employer standard, it would likely expand the number of entities found to be joint employers and thus potentially liable for alleged unfair labor practices, and could have ramifications under other employment laws as well, including wage and hour and discrimination cases.

ARTICLE BY

Alexis Dominguez
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

E-Verify Update and Improvements

Poyner Spruill Law firm

​E-Verify has been operational since 1997 as part of a Basic Pilot Program to assist employers to verify electronically that a newly hired employee is authorized to work in the US.  A number of states have made use of E-Verify mandatory, including North Carolina which requires that employers with 25 employees to have been enrolled in E-Verify by July 1, 2013.

Update

Currently there are over 530,000 employers nationwide enrolled in E-Verify.  Statistically, the program has grown rapidly as has its accuracy, having verified close to 24 million cases.  Of those, 98.81% have been confirmed as employment authorized.  The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) graphic below provides E-Verify’s latest statistics:

E-verify

The Monitoring and Compliance Branch (M&C Branch) was created by the USCIS in 2009 to ensure E-Verify is being used properly.  Its main function is to monitor and guide E-Verify participants by phone, email, desk reviews and site visits.  This unit does not fine employers, but does refer cases of suspected misuse, abuse or fraud to Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC).  There has been an uptick in complaints to the OSC resulting in some sizeable settlements.  All settlement agreements described on the OSC website have one thing in common: all employers participated in E-Verify and the OSC became involved, for the most part, by the USCIS referring the employer to OSC.  Thus, it is noteworthy that participation in E-Verify alone does not protect an employer from enforcement action and penalties.

Recent Improvements to E-Verify System

E-Verify has announced some needed improvements to its system to assist employers who, in doing so, will hopefully not attract M&C Branch attention:

  • Duplicate Case alert now notifies the employer if a social security number  matches any other social security number entered for an existing case with the past 30 days.
  • The user’s name no longer auto-fills: it must now be completed each time to ensure accuracy, providing a prompt to validate or update email and phone number whenever the user’s password expires, which is every 90 days.
  • An employee whose information is entered in E-Verify resulting in a tentative nonconfirmation will receive email notification if they provide their email address on the Form I-9.
  • There is a new photo tool that will display any photo on record with E-Verify, enabling the user to compare it to the photo ID being presented.
  • E-Verify now verifies a driver’s license as to authenticity by matching the data entered by the user against participating state motor vehicle department records. Currently, North Carolina does not participate in this so-called RIDE system.
  • If E-Verify detects fraudulent use of a social security number, it prevents that number from being used more than once.
  • Notices generated by E-Verify are now available in 18 languages.
  • There are monthly webinars in Spanish for employers.
  • E-Verify screens for typographical errors and requires employers to correct them.
  • The Further Action Notice that is generated after a Tentative Nonconfirmation from the Department of Homeland Security includes instructions on how to correct immigration records after resolving the Tentative Nonconfirmation on E-Verify.
  • Updated Further Action Notices are also no longer pre-populated, but are easy to complete.
  • Customer support has been improved and includes an “E-Verify Listens” link that can be accessed by the E-Verify user while in the E-Verify system to assist with E-Verify completion.

While the system is not perfect, it is increasingly pervasive and increasingly “user friendly.”  Further, employers have a strong incentive to use E-Verify properly to avoid settlements generated by  enforcement actions that appear to be directly linked to E-Verify misuse, abuse and fraud.

ARTICLE BY

Jennifer G. Parser
OF
Poyner Spruill LLP

Employee Codes of Conduct: Really? Requiring Someone To Use Information “Fairly And Lawfully” Can Be Illegal?

Allen Matkins Law Firm

Companies have lots of very good reasons for adopting codes of conduct.  These reasons include:

  • Ensuring compliance with applicable exchange listing rules (e.g., NYSE Rule 303A.10 and NASDAQ Rule 5610);
  • Minimizing the risk of securities law violations (e.g., Regulation FD and Rule 10b-5);
  • Protecting company assets (trade secrets as well as reputational assets);
  • Complying with contractual obligations requiring confidentiality; and
  • Complying with customer and employee privacy laws and regulations.

Thus, I was amazed to see a recent decision by a panel of the National Labor Relations Board finding the following language in a code of conduct to be unlawful:

Keep customer and employee information secure.  Information must be used fairly, lawfully and only for the purpose for which it was obtained.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market and United Food & Commercial Works Int’l Union, Cases 31-CA-077074 and 31-CA-080734 (July 31, 2014).   The NLRB found that this language violated employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.  Reversing the administrative law judge, the panel found that employees would reasonably construe the above language “to prohibit discussion and disclosure of information about other employees, such as wages and terms and conditions of employment”.  Really?  This admonition was included at page 16 of a 20 page booklet primarily dedicated to a variety of ethical matters.  In my view, it is arbitrary and capricious, if not just plain bizarre, to interpret this language as conveying any limitation on employees’ Section 7 rights.

ARTICLE BY

Keith Paul Bishop
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP