NLRB Approves Company’s Baseball Cap Rule

Under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), employers are permitted to maintain uniform and dress code policies in the workplace, so long as such policies do not prohibit employees from wearing union insignia, absent special circumstances, such as health and safety concerns. While seemingly straightforward, application of this rule can be quite meticulous in practice. A recent National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) case, World Color (USA) Corp., a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Quad Graphics Inc., 369 NLRB No. 104 (June 12, 2020), provides guidance as to when an employer can restrict apparel logos at work.

When Can You Limit Apparel to Company Logos?

World Color (USA) Corp., is a Wisconsin company that maintains a facility in Nevada, where it prints commercial inserts for newspapers.

In early 2011, World Color distributed a set of mandatory guidelines to its employees containing a uniform and dress code policy requiring that all employees wear authorized company uniforms as a condition of employment, and to dress and groom professionally at all times. The guidelines permitted employees to accessorize the uniform, but required the accessorizing to be “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules.” The guidelines further required that if “hair… could potentially get caught in [production equipment], it must be secured… with a hairnet or other means. Baseball caps are prohibited except for [company] baseball caps worn with the bill facing forward.” World Color further prohibited wearing buttons and pins on the production floor as a safety hazard.

After the union filed a charge, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the policy was unlawful because it prohibited employees from wearing baseball caps with union logos and from displaying union insignia on hats.

After several appeals, however, the Board found that the policy did not prohibit employees from engaging in the protected activity of wearing caps bearing union insignia. Rather, the cap policy merely required employees to wear a company cap to align with the overall company uniform. The Board noted that employees were not prohibited from wearing union insignia on the company cap as long as they were “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules”. As such, the Board found that the uniform policy was lawful because it permitted employees to wear union insignias on company caps as long as they did not pose a safety risk.

What This Decision Means for Employers

Uniform and dress code rules are just one of a great number of issues that employers face in ensuring that their workplace policies comply with the mandates of the NLRA. The NLRA applies to almost all private sector employers nationwide, whether their employees are currently represented by a union or not. Employers should be aware of the level of scrutiny that can be placed on their workplace policies — by unions, by ALJs, and by the Board. Employers should be on the look-out for uniform and dress code provisions that:

  • Specifically prohibit wearing union insignia;

  • Broadly prohibit wearing all non-company insignia, even without reference to unions;

  • Require company or supervisor approval or authorization of union insignia;

  • Unreasonably limit the size and shape of union insignia on uniforms;

  • Prohibit union insignia without documented specific and legitimate safety reasons.

We recommend that employers consult with experienced labor counsel to revise and review their workplace policies to fully comply with all state and federal requirements, including the NLRA. This way, employers will be in the best position to protect the right to efficiently and effectively maintain their businesses. Moreover, employers should be aware that even seemingly minor violations of the NLRA may compromise the ability to assert their rights in other contexts, such as possible threats of union organizing.


©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

For more on dress code policies, see the National Law Review Labor and Employment law section.

5 Ways Traditional Law Firm Culture Burdens Lawyers of Color

City University of New York Scholar and Sociologist Tsedale M. Melaku studies diversity in the legal field, and in a recent Harvard Business Review article she wrote specifically about the social and professional challenges nonwhite lawyers face when they work for traditional law firms. While most white law leaders now appreciate the importance of fostering diversity, their own life experiences may blind them to the specific ways in which conventional law firm culture complicates the path for the lawyers they sincerely want to recruit, retain and support.

Fortunately, Melaku’s interviews with these lawyers illuminate the very concrete problems — and hint at solutions, many of which can be driven, or at least implemented, by marketing and business development teams. Here’s a handful of the challenges these lawyers face:

PR and marketing support automatically follows the rainmakers.

When an attorney lands a game-changing client or nabs a record settlement, the firm promotes the win with a press release, mention in the legal press and maybe even an opportunity for that lawyer to write a column on his practice area. Those are all smart PR moves. But if your marketing and PR “carrots” are distributed just to your firm’s big winners, you may find that every time a picture of one of your lawyers runs in the legal press, it is one of the same handful of white men.

Instead, firms need to imagine a broader purpose for PR: spotlighting attorneys for what makes them unique can be a catalyst for growth and advancement, rather than just a reward that comes after an important deal. Do you have attorneys taking a novel approach to some niche within their practice area? Or who came to their work in the law by an unusual route? What about interesting pro bono work? An active blog, a podcast or other creative use of technology to reach clients? All of these traits represent potential avenues for feature stories, bylined thought leadership articles, conversations with reporters or ideas for conference panels that will give new attorneys a chance to build their individual profiles and the overall brand of the firm.

Serving as the “face” of the firm’s diversity initiatives is (uncompensated) work.

Sadly, diversity is so rare in the leadership class that when firms do manage to advance a lawyer of color, that person is often tasked with representing the firm on panels and at events in addition to serving their clients. While some lawyers may welcome these opportunities, others might prefer to focus on the practice of law. So, even as firms provide additional PR and marketing support for diverse attorneys, firm leaders must recognize that contributing to outreach and diversity initiatives is work — and should be treated as such. Some firms allow attorneys to bill for this time just as they would for client work. Others consider it on performance evaluations when it comes time for raises or bonuses. Find a way to compensate these attorneys for this extra work.

Traditional networking depends on access.

Snagging clients on the golf course, in the country club, or during an ivy league alumni weekend are great business development strategies — for some people. But not all lawyers grew up playing golf, and many elite clubs in this country still have a checkered relationship with diversity, making membership far from routine or even comfortable for lawyers of color. Does your firm celebrate these “chance” encounters with clients at the expense of more formal and inclusive forms of networking?

Support your hires from nontraditional backgrounds by helping them build professional networks that feel authentic to their own experience. This might include support from communications professionals to pitch them for conference panels, nominate them for awards and help them get involved in professional organizations. There is more than one way to network, and lawyers need to know their firm supports their pursuit of new business in ways that honor who they are.

Mentors tend to choose mentees who look like them.

Mentoring has been held up as a key tool for improving retention and advancement. But when senior attorneys think about grooming the lawyers who will someday lead the firm — and inherit their clients — they tend to choose the lawyers who remind them of themselves. Firms are fond of saying that mentoring relationships should come together “naturally,” but for young lawyers who don’t see people like them in leadership positions, this often leads to no mentoring at all.

Firms can take action on this without getting paralyzed by the chicken-and-egg problem (the only way to advance young minority lawyers is to put minority mentors in place, but those lawyers need mentors to get there). Proactive planning to make mentoring part of the work process, and careful matchmaking to connect your firm’s best teachers with the lawyers who can benefit from their experience are good first steps. Not everyone is cut out to be a mentor, and that’s fine. The firm should take responsibility for facilitating these relationships and for evaluating the effectiveness of mentors. Are their mentees advancing in demonstrable ways? Mentorship should involve more than just offering advice; mentors should also be actively sponsoring and promoting their protégés for stretch assignments and leadership opportunities.

Dress codes privilege European standards.

Lawyers of color face both explicit and implicit expectations about how members of the firm should dress and wear their hair. While written dress codes that prohibit, for example, garments worn for religious reasons are obvious violations of equal employment opportunity laws, rules that bar styles worn for cultural or personal reasons may be legal but no less burdensome. In some firms, the written dress code is quite vague, requiring “professional dress,” but the implicit expectations that come along with it are specific and exacting.

The truth is, the notion that conservative business suits for men and women set the standard for professionalism is a white, Western idea. So are norms around hairstyles, facial hair, makeup, jewelry, fingernails, heel height and other aspects of personal expression. Body sizes vary, and not everyone can easily (or affordably) adhere to traditional requirements. Or they may not want to. Dressing authentically is, for many people, an expression of pride in their identities and an opportunity to increase visibility and inclusion, sending a message to younger attorneys on the way up that they, too, belong. If your firm insists on conformity, even when it doesn’t impact job performance, whom might that exclude? And what does your firm miss out on when your lawyers aren’t comfortable bringing their whole selves to work?

Firms that are truly serious about moving the needle on diversity and inclusion understand that the secret is not rearranging the seats at the table, but making that table bigger. In every aspect of work life at the firm — office culture, client engagement, mentoring, promotion and, of course, the practice of law itself — you must establish policies that encourage your attorneys to bring their unique perspectives and insights with them each day. It’s how you will retain and advance the diverse leadership class your clients demand. And it’s the only way you will realize the true benefits that come from different kinds of people solving problems in different ways.


© 2019 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

For more on law firm diversity, see the National Law Review Law Office Management page.