Tag: NLRB

The Latest in the NLRB Handbook Saga? Another Unlawful Recording Policy Fails to Pass Muster

Whole-Foods-Market.jpgLast month, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) yet again shed further light on its analysis – and increased scrutiny – of employers’ handbook policies.  The NLRB’s decision in T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (Apr. 29, 2016), serves as a follow-up to an earlier decision with respect to rules restricting employees’ use of recording devices.  We talked about the T-Mobile decision in our post last week and thought we would continue the discussion by elaborating on another of the board’s decisions on recording rules.

In one of many recent decisions scrutinizing employer handbook policies, the board in Whole Foods evaluated an employer rule prohibiting the use of recording devices on company premises.  Whole Foods, 363 NLRB No. 87 (Dec 24, 2015).  The NLRB specifically explained that it was not holding that all rules regulating recordings are invalid.  Rather, the board found “only that recording may, under certain circumstances, constitute protected concerted activity under Sec. 7 and that rules that would reasonably be read by employees to prohibit protected concerted recording violate the Act.”  Id. at *3, n.9.  The NLRB further explained that employers are not prohibited from maintaining rules restricting or prohibiting employee use of recording devices, but they must be narrowly drawn so that employees understand that Sec. 7 activity is not restricted.  This was the board’s issue with respect to the Whole Foods policy, as it found the rules to be overly broad.  The board relied on the fact that the rules applied regardless of the type of activity engaged in and that it covered all recordings.

The T-Mobile decision, which we wrote about last week, provides additional insight on how to interpret Whole Foods.  In T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (Apr. 29, 2016), the board found the following policy to be unlawful:

To prevent harassment, maintain individual privacy, encourage open communication, and protect confidential information, employees are prohibited from recording people or confidential information using cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace. Apart from customer calls that are recorded for quality purposes, employees may not tape or otherwise make sound recordings of work-related or workplace discussions. Exceptions may be granted when participating in an authorized [] activity or with permission from an employee’s Manager, HR Business Partner, or the Legal Department. If an exception is granted, employees may not take a picture, audiotape, or videotape others in the workplace without the prior notification of all participants.

Id. at *4.  The administrative law judge found that T-Mobile had set forth valid, nondiscriminatory rationales for the rule, including maintaining a harassment-free work environment and protecting trade secrets, and that the rule was narrowly tailored to these interests.  However, the NLRB reversed, noting that “[t]he rule does not differentiate between recordings that are protected by Section 7 and those that are not, and includes in its prohibition recordings made during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.”  Id. at *5.  Notably, though, the policy did state that the restriction is limited to recordings “in the workplace.”

With respect to the policy justifications alleged, the board conducted the following analysis:

  1. Harassment: T-Mobile asserted that its recording prohibition was in place to prevent harassment and noted that, under federal and state laws, employers have an affirmative obligation to prevent harassing conduct. However, the NLRB found that the recording prohibition was not narrowly tailored to this interest.  The board noted that it neither cited laws regarding workplace harassment nor specified that the restriction is limited to recordings that could constitute unlawful harassment.

  1. Confidential information: T-Mobile asserted as an additional justification its interest in protected confidential information in the workplace. The NLRB noted that the employer’s other policies defined “confidential information” as inclusive of employee information such as employee contact information and wage and salary information.  The board also cited Whole Foods and said that the employer’s interest in protecting confidential information was too insufficient to justify the broad prohibition on recording.

While Whole Foods indicated that such policies are not per se unlawful, the T-Mobile decision makes clear that simply inserting business justifications into the policy will not distinguish the lawful from the unlawful.  The board seems to be closely scrutinizing the justifications and requiring detailed explanations thereof.  The decisions in T-Mobile and Whole Foods indicate that the NLRB will also require that a rule carve out recordings that would be considered protected activity under the Act, and it appears – at least for now – that rules which fail to do so will be struck down.  T-Mobile teaches us that, while recording rules are still lawful in some circumstances, the rules must be especially specific with regard to their application and justifications.  Employers should continue to closely monitor NLRB decisions to stay up-to-date on all decisions analyzing employer handbook policies.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Burrito Bowls, Guacamole, &. . .Tweets? NLRB Judge Finds Social Media Policy Unlawful

There’s more bad news this week for restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill, but this time it has nothing to do with the food.

Last year, we heard about an NLRB decision upholding an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that the restaurant had committed an unfair labor practice. According to the decision, Chipotle had allegedly threatened and interrogated employees who engaged in discussions about their pay. The employee at issue in the case had worked at a Chipotle restaurant in St. Louis, Missouri. He was also a union member who participated in strikes and was involved with the “Show Me 15” campaign for a higher minimum wage.

That decision is currently pending appeal, and Chipotle has suffered another NLRB loss this week. An ALJ ruled against the restaurant and found an unfair labor practice charge for what the judge described as the company’s unlawful social media code of conduct. The case involves a Chipotle employee in Havertown, Pennsylvania, named James Kennedy. By way of background, Chipotle employs a national social media strategist who is responsible for reviewing employees’ social media posts to determine whether any of them violate the company’s social media policy.

In early 2015, some of Kennedy’s tweets were reviewed by the strategist, including one where Kennedy had replied to a few customers’ tweets. For example, in response to a customer who tweeted “Free chipotle is the best thanks,” Kennedy tweeted “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members only make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Then, replying to a tweet posted by another customer about guacamole, Kennedy wrote “it’s extra not like #Qdoba, enjoy the extra $2.”

Chipotle’s social media strategist emailed the regional manager, forwarded the tweets, and told the manager to ask Kennedy to delete the tweets and to review the company’s social media policy with him. Kennedy was subsequently terminated following a dispute with management over an unrelated issue.

The ALJ evaluated whether Chipotle maintained an unlawful social media policy based on the following provisions:

  • If you aren’t careful and don’t use your head, your online activity can also damage Chipotle or spread incomplete, confidential, or inaccurate information.
  • You may not make disparaging, false, misleading, harassing or discriminatory statements about or relating to Chipotle, our employees, suppliers, customers, competition, or investors.

Generally a violation of the act based on an unlawful work rule is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004). The ALJ found that the company’s social media policy failed on the first and third prongs.

Picking apart the provision, the ALJ relied on other Board decisions which found rules prohibiting “derogatory” statements to be unlawful. The ALJ also took issue with the prohibition on “false” statements, saying, “[M]ore than a false or misleading statement by the employee is required; it must be shown that the employee had a malicious motive.” The ALJ also found no relief based on the policy’s disclaimer which said “This code does not restrict any activity that is protected or restricted by the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblower laws, or any other privacy rights.”

Although the employee was not ultimately terminated for posting the tweets, employers can still get in trouble with the NLRB where social media policies are concerned. Considering NLRB decisions regarding work rules and handbook policies apply regardless of whether the employees are unionized. We’ll follow this case as it makes its way to the full Board.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Burrito Bowls, Guacamole, &. . .Tweets? NLRB Judge Finds Social Media Policy Unlawful

There’s more bad news this week for restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill, but this time it has nothing to do with the food.

Last year, we heard about an NLRB decision upholding an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that the restaurant had committed an unfair labor practice. According to the decision, Chipotle had allegedly threatened and interrogated employees who engaged in discussions about their pay. The employee at issue in the case had worked at a Chipotle restaurant in St. Louis, Missouri. He was also a union member who participated in strikes and was involved with the “Show Me 15” campaign for a higher minimum wage.

That decision is currently pending appeal, and Chipotle has suffered another NLRB loss this week. An ALJ ruled against the restaurant and found an unfair labor practice charge for what the judge described as the company’s unlawful social media code of conduct. The case involves a Chipotle employee in Havertown, Pennsylvania, named James Kennedy. By way of background, Chipotle employs a national social media strategist who is responsible for reviewing employees’ social media posts to determine whether any of them violate the company’s social media policy.

In early 2015, some of Kennedy’s tweets were reviewed by the strategist, including one where Kennedy had replied to a few customers’ tweets. For example, in response to a customer who tweeted “Free chipotle is the best thanks,” Kennedy tweeted “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members only make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Then, replying to a tweet posted by another customer about guacamole, Kennedy wrote “it’s extra not like #Qdoba, enjoy the extra $2.”

Chipotle’s social media strategist emailed the regional manager, forwarded the tweets, and told the manager to ask Kennedy to delete the tweets and to review the company’s social media policy with him. Kennedy was subsequently terminated following a dispute with management over an unrelated issue.

The ALJ evaluated whether Chipotle maintained an unlawful social media policy based on the following provisions:

  • If you aren’t careful and don’t use your head, your online activity can also damage Chipotle or spread incomplete, confidential, or inaccurate information.
  • You may not make disparaging, false, misleading, harassing or discriminatory statements about or relating to Chipotle, our employees, suppliers, customers, competition, or investors.

Generally a violation of the act based on an unlawful work rule is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004). The ALJ found that the company’s social media policy failed on the first and third prongs.

Picking apart the provision, the ALJ relied on other Board decisions which found rules prohibiting “derogatory” statements to be unlawful. The ALJ also took issue with the prohibition on “false” statements, saying, “[M]ore than a false or misleading statement by the employee is required; it must be shown that the employee had a malicious motive.” The ALJ also found no relief based on the policy’s disclaimer which said “This code does not restrict any activity that is protected or restricted by the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblower laws, or any other privacy rights.”

Although the employee was not ultimately terminated for posting the tweets, employers can still get in trouble with the NLRB where social media policies are concerned. Considering NLRB decisions regarding work rules and handbook policies apply regardless of whether the employees are unionized. We’ll follow this case as it makes its way to the full Board.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Lady Murderface and Protected Activity Under NLRA

national labor relations boardHave you seen the story about “Talia Jane”?  I am not sure what qualifies as “going viral” (although I bet my kids do), but since I heard about it, this story may indeed be “viral.”  See, e.g., Here and here.

In a nutshell, Talia used to be a customer-service agent at Yelp.  On February 19, she published a very lengthy “open letter” to Yelp’s CEO on a blog. In her blog post, Talia Jane complains about how she and her fellow low-level employees are struggling to make ends meet.

So here I am, 25-years old, balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week. Every single one of my coworkers is struggling. They’re taking side jobs, they’re living at home. One of them started a GoFundMe because she couldn’t pay her rent. She ended up leaving the company and moving east, somewhere the minimum wage could double as a living wage.

The post is as much a commentary about the inadequate minimum wage in San Francisco (and its high cost of living) as it is a complaint about her (perceived inadequate) pay at Yelp.  Her post is full of snark. (For example, Talia Jane writes:  “According to this website, you’ve got a pretty nice house in the east bay. Have you ever been stranded inside a CVS because you can’t afford to get to work? How much do you pay your gardeners to keep that lawn and lovely backyard looking so neat?”)

She was fired later that day, although Yelp is not publicly saying why. Assuming the reason for her termination was the blog post, does Talia Jane have a claim that under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) she was engaging in protected activity?

As the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) states on its website, the NLRA “gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions, with or without a union. If employees are fired, suspended, or otherwise penalized for taking part in protected group activity, the National Labor Relations Board will fight to restore what was unlawfully taken away.”

Again, from the NLRB website, the inquiry will involve three questions:

Is the activity concerted?

Generally, this requires two or more employees acting together to improve wages or working conditions, but the action of a single employee may be considered concerted if he or she involves co-workers before acting, or acts on behalf of others.

Does it seek to benefit other employees?

Will the improvements sought – whether in pay, hours, safety, workload, or other terms of employment – benefit more than just the employee taking action?  Or is the action more along the lines of a personal gripe, which is not protected?

Is it carried out in a way that causes it to lose protection?

Reckless or malicious behavior, such as sabotaging equipment, threatening violence, spreading lies about a product, or revealing trade secrets, may cause concerted activity to lose its protection.

Since 2011, the NLRB has dedicated much time to addressing companies’ social media policies in the non-union context.  For the most part, it has expanded the definition of concerted activity in social media.  See, e.g., Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. v Carlos Ortiz, NLRB No. 3-CA-27872 (Sept. 2, 2011), aff’d 359 NLRB No. 37 (Dec. 14, 2012) (holding that five employees engaged in protected concerted activity by posting Facebook comments that responded to a co-worker’s criticism of their job performance); Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB No. 106 (Sept. 7, 2012) (invalidating a company’s electronic posting policy that prohibited employees from making statements that “damage the Company…or damage any person’s reputation,” because it could chill employees’ willingness to engage in their right of concerted activity); Three D, LLC v. N.L.R.B., No. 14-3284 (2d Cir. Oct. 21, 2015) (holding that employees’ endorsement of former employee’s claim on social networking website that employer had erred in tax withholding was concerted activity protected by NLRA).  Still, employers may discipline or even terminate employees for personal rants and insults on social media that do not engage other employees.

Talia Jane knew that her post might cost her job.  (After she tweeted her blog post to the world – from her “Lady Murderface” twitter handle – she followed up with this tweet:  “might lose my job for this so it’d be cool if u shared so i could go out in a blaze of…..people knowing why i got fired?”)  In fact, given Lady Murderface’s expressed desire to work in media, I think it is a safe bet she wanted to get fired.

But back to the question at hand: what happens if Talia Jane makes a claim against Yelp?  Although we don’t know all the facts, it could be a close call.

Is the activity concerted? On the one hand, there was no “concerted activity.”  Talia Jane was acting alone.  On the other hand, Talia Jane arguably was acting not only on her own behalf but other low-level Yelp workers struggling to make ends meet.

Does it seek to benefit other employees? To the extent she is advocating for higher pay generally, yes.

Is it carried out in a way that causes it to lose protection? If the answer to the first question does not doom her, Talia Jane could run into problems here.  While ranting about the lack of training, poor retention, and inadequate pay, Talia Jane writes:

Speaking of that whole training thing, do you know what the average retention rate of your lowest employees (like myself) are? Because I haven’t been here very long, but it seems like every week the faces change. …  Do you know how many cash coupons I used to give out before I was properly trained? In one month, I gave out over $600 to customers for a variety of issues. Now, since getting more training, I’ve given out about $15 in the past three months because I’ve been able to de-escalate messed up situations using just my customer service skills. Do you think that’s coincidence? Or is the goal to have these free bleeders who throw money at angry customers to calm them down set the standard for the whole company?

I have never called Yelp to complain, but if I ever do, I guess I should look for a cash coupon.  Who knew Yelp’s customer-service team was full of “free bleeders [who] throw money at angry customers”?

My hunch is that Talia Jane won’t make a claim — I doubt she wants her job restored — and instead will ride this wave of publicity to a job she finds more satisfying.  Nevertheless, this case serves as an important reminder regarding the potential landmines that social media presents to employers.  Employers and their counsel should approach disciplinary decisions involving social media with caution, and should make sure that any decisions focus on activity that is not protected under the NLRA.

Article By Scott McConchie of Sherin and Lodgen LLP
© 2016 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

2015 Union Membership Rate Relatively Stable Despite New NLRB Election Rules

national labor relations boardDespite the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie election rules,” the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector remained stable during 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor: 6.7% of private-sector workers were in unions in 2015, up from 6.6% in 2014. Not surprisingly, public-sector workers had a much higher union membership rate: 35.2%.

According to the report, men had a higher union membership rate than women: 11.5% versus 10.6%. In addition, the percentage of African-American workers who were union members was greater than Caucasian workers.

New York (24.6%), Alaska (22.8%), and Hawaii (21.8%) had the highest unionization rates, whereas South Carolina (2.2%), Mississippi (3.7%), and Utah (3.7%) had the lowest.

The report found the median weekly earnings of nonunion workers were lower than the median weekly earnings for unionized workers ($776 per week versus $980 per week). The report, however, recognizes that this comparison may not be valid because the “comparisons of earnings in [the] release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.” Indeed, this is likely the case.

Article By Howard M. Bloom & Philip B. Rosen of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Executive Action: Obama’s Legacy and 2016 Predictions (Part 2 of 2)

As promised in our previous post, today we conclude our predictions on President Obama’s 2016 executive activity.  While we believe the President’s final executive orders will target immigration and perhaps even corporate political expenditures, we predict executive agency action will cover a broad range of pressing labor and employment issues.  With federal legislative gridlock expected to continue through 2016, employers should prepare themselves for a barrage of agency activity, especially from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and Department of Labor (“DOL”).  Our summary is below.

Expected Agency Activity of 2016

Based on the 2015 Supreme Court decisions in Young v. UPS and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and the EEOC’s interest in systematic discrimination in the workplace, we predict the EEOC will focus heavily on companies’ policies regarding pregnancy and religious discrimination and accommodation in 2016.  As a refresher, in Young the Court held a genuine factual dispute existed as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation “cannot reasonably be distinguished” from Ms. Young’s —e.g., workers unable to lift up to 70 pounds due to reasons other than pregnancy limitations such as a workplace injury or a recognized disability.  In Abercrombie (blogged about here) the Court concluded an employer violates Title VII by rejecting an applicant in order to avoid making a religious accommodation, even if the employer only has an “unsubstantiated suspicion” that the applicant may eventually request an accommodation.

Along with discrimination/accommodation policies, we predict the EEOC and NLRB will focus on company-wide social media policies in 2016. While the NLRB has been hounding employers on social media policies since 2010, the EEOC did not really begin gathering information on the issue until 2014.   We believe 2016 will be the year the EEOC begins targeting employers’ social media policies to evidence discrimination.  We also predict the EEOC’s focus on gender identity discrimination and the NLRB’s focus on FLSA class action settlements will continue with full force into 2016.

With the DOL’s Final Rule on overtime exemption updates expected to roll out this year, we predict the agency will focus on wage-hour reform and that employers will be expected to get into compliance sooner rather than later. Although Solicitor of Labor Patricia Smith stated in November 2015 that final guidelines will not likely be issued until “late 2016,” we believe the DOL will push them out before November’s presidential election.  Employers should expect the Final Rule to increase the minimum salary exemption requirement from $455/week to $970/week.  We would not be surprised if the DOL also finalizes revisions to the duties test, which is a factor along with salary level used to determine whether an employee qualifies under a white collar exemption to minimum wage and overtime rules.

Although the 2016 federal legislation horizon looks bleak, President Obama and his executive agencies are poised for a busy final year. Stay tuned for further developments.

Article By Kristine M. Woliver of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Target Faces First Ever Union

The Wall Street Journal reports the NLRB has rejected an appeal from Target Corp. seeking to invalidate an employee vote in favor of unionization.  In September, a “micro-unit” of about one dozen pharmacy workers in Brooklyn, NY voted in favor of unionization.  The company appealed, but the NLRB affirmed the vote yesterday.

As reported in the article, “The group of less than a dozen employees in Brooklyn, N.Y., would be the first union among Target’s nearly 350,000 employees, marking a significant milestone for a company that has fought to keep unions out of its stores.”  The complete article can be found here.

Article By John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Be Careful What You Say During a Union Organizing Campaign

national labor relations boardAt the same time that the current National Labor Relations Board is giving employees what seems like the unfettered ability to engage in disparagement, profane outbursts, and racist comments that accompany protected union or other concerted activity, employers are having to become ever more careful about what they say. Even truthful and seemingly innocuous statements made during an organizing campaign can be viewed, in hindsight, as having an unlawful “chilling effect” that discourages employees from exercising their rights to support a union. A recent decision from a federal appeals court in Chicago provides a cautionary tale for employers who find out about organizing activity and want to keep their workplace union-free.

On September 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) upheld the Board’s determination that an Illinois auto dealership illegally discouraged workers from supporting a union and illegally terminated a worker after learning he failed to disclose the suspensions of driver’s license following a DUI charge. The court noted that the employer learned union activity was “afoot” after receiving an anonymous voicemail from a woman who called “on behalf of the spouse of one of your employees.” The anonymous caller said that a particular employee was trying to “stir up” the unionization effort and stated that he did not have a valid license, which the dealership required, because of his DUI. After receiving this voicemail, the employer interviewed the employee, who admitted his license was invalid, and then suspended and later terminated him.

Meanwhile, the dealership’s general manager and other top managers met with workers to discuss the union organizing effort. One of the employees present secretly recorded the meeting. During the meeting, the managers said that any bargaining with the union would “start from scratch,” warned (truthfully) that its Orlando dealership had not had any bargaining negotiations even though its workers elected a union nearly three years ago, advised that pay raises were “absolutely possible” in the event employees rejected the union as it considered pay adjustments every year, responded that they “don’t know” if some employees would be demoted under union rules, and suggested that support for the union could “follow” them when they seek other employment because other employers might be hesitant to hire them.

The Board determined that the managers’ statements all had a “tendency” to discourage employees from organizing, and were therefore illegal under federal labor law. The managers’ statements were unlawful in four respects: (1) they “threatened” that it would be “futile” for workers to organize by suggesting that bargaining would start from scratch and bringing up the Orlando dealership as an example of potential negative consequences; (2) they implied “promises” of wage increases by suggesting that employees might receive pay raises if they reject the union; (3) they “threatened” workers with demotions by saying they didn’t know what would happen under the union’s rules; and (4) they “threatened” blacklisting by suggesting that employees’ support for the union would follow them.

The Seventh Circuit upheld all of the Board’s findings, although it did not review the Board’s decision from scratch but rather decided only whether there was “substantial evidence” to support the decision. The most obvious violation to the appellate court was the threat of blacklisting. The court found the other statements could reasonably be interpreted as unlawfully discouraging employees from unionizing. For example, the managers told the truth about the failure of negotiations at the Orlando dealership, but bringing this up in the context of the other statements could have been viewed by the workers as a threat that it would be futile for them to elect the union. And the managers were not off the hook when they spoke in hypotheticals or said that they were unaware of what would happen – answering “maybe” when asked about future pay increases was still an illegal promise of benefit and saying “I don’t know” if workers will be demoted under union rules was still a threat.

As to the employee who was suspended (and later terminated) after the employer found out his license was suspended, the Board found that his termination was illegal because it was motivated, at least in part, by his support for the union. The court again upheld this finding, stressing that the employee’s support for the union did not need to be the sole or even primary reason for his termination – it only needed to be a “motivating factor.” Here, there was enough evidence to show an unlawful motivation because the caller who left a voicemail singled out the employee for his union activity and the employer had shown “hostility” toward the union during its meeting with employees.

The lesson from this case is that employers need to be very careful about what they tell employees during a union organizing campaign. Even one statement that crosses the line can put everything else that was said in a worse light and ultimately get the employer in trouble. The case shows that employers should not make the following statements:

  • Bargaining will start from scratch (viewed as a threat that workers will lose their current pay and/or benefits).

  • You will receive a pay increase and/or other benefits even without a union (viewed as a promise that workers will receive benefits if they reject the union).

  • We are going to bargain hard if you elect a union, so do not expect things to change (viewed as a threat that supporting a union would be futile).

Perhaps you are wondering, what can employers say? Here are some examples of permissible statements:

  • We oppose the union and urge you to do the same.

  • You enjoy good pay, benefits, and job security without a union.

  • You have a right to refuse to sign an authorization card or speak to union representatives, and may vote against the union in an election even if you previously signed a card.

  • If there is an economic strike, we may permanently replace all striking workers.

  • The union cannot guarantee better wages, benefits, and working conditions (as long as there is no threat that workers risk losing what they currently have by supporting the union).

In short, employers can express their opposition to the union and discuss the pros and cons of union membership, such as having to pay union dues (in non-right to work states). Employers can also provide factual information about the law, the union (dues, fees, rules, officials’ salaries, etc.), and how unionized companies compare against non-unionized companies in terms of wages and benefits, competitiveness, etc. in the industry.

It is often hard to tell when an employer’s statement opposing a union might cross the line and be viewed as unlawfully discouraging workers from exercising their rights. Even true statements can be viewed as illegally tending to discourage union activity. To stay in the clear, employers should obtain legal advice before speaking in opposition to a union organizing campaign.

Article By Scott T. Allen of Foley & Lardner LLP
© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

NLRB Calls Out Punt Team and Declines Jurisdiction Over Northwestern University Football Players

In a mild surprise given the current constitution of the Board (read – majority appointed by President Obama), the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction in ruling on the petition of Northwestern University’s scholarship football players to unionize.  However, in a display of special teams not seen on a football field in Evanston, Illinois since the days of John Kidd, the NLRB reached its decision without determining if scholarship players were “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act.  Even with this limitation, it is clear competitive balance considerations for NCAA Division I sports has received great deference as a policy matter in a legal dispute.

I will not take this opportunity to point out my initial forecast that the NLRB would find this case extremely unique for its jurisdiction and the original decision by the Chicago NLRB regional office would be reassessed given the potential effect on permissible amateurism.  Not doing it.  It is sufficient to note this decision affirms the desire of the NLRB to see the student-athlete/employee question answered by Congress and/or the NCAA member institutions, although not necessarily in that order.

A fair question in reading the Board’s decision is whether the same result would have occurred if the “Power 5” conferences had not recently enacted measure to provide athletic aid for the full cost of attendance and extra benefits for scholarship athletes.  Since Northwestern University, as a member of the Big Ten, is subject to these new rules, it provided a floor for the enhancement of student-athlete benefits.  The Board noted this enhancement, even though it occurred after the scholarship football players filed their petition and there is no indication it would have been sufficient for collective bargaining purposes.

As the National Labor Relations Act does not cover public employees, it is important to remember the majority of Division I student-athletes participating in revenue-generating sports attend state universities.  The ability of public employees to organize for collective bargaining is governed by state law.  While the NLRB’s decision notes that Ohio and Michigan have recently enacted legislation which precludes union organization by student-athletes of their state universities (putting those perpetual lovebirds, the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University in the same basket), keep an eye on states like Connecticut and Pennsylvania which have recently considered legislation that goes the opposite direction to explicitly provide student-athletes the status of employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

Since this legal issue is by no means resolved, private NCAA institutions are still advised to make sure that NCAA and university-sponsored rules which govern practice time, academic advice and progress, athletic-related activities, and student-athlete wellness are monitored for compliance.  As a best practice, institutions should consider third-party compliance audits which not only uncover hidden legal vulnerabilities, but also are helpful in defusing the concerns which could lead to an organizational effort by the football or basketball team.

ARTICLE BY Tyrone P. Thomas of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

WTF? NLRB’s OK with “Cut the Crap?” – Protected Speech Under the NLRA

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has yet again undercut employers’ efforts to limit profane and vulgar language by workers finding vulgar buttons and stickers to be protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB

In Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Nevada Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T and Communication Workers of America, Case # 20–CA–080400, the board ruled that the two companies violated the NLRA when they attempted to block workers from wearing buttons and stickers containing the phrase “Cut the Crap” and the abbreviation “WTF.”

The buttons and stickers read “WTF Where’s the Fairness,” “FTW Fight to Win” and “Cut the Crap! Not My Healthcare.” In overturning an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) prior ruling and holding 2-1 that the buttons and stickers were protected speech, the board majority found the language not to be so profane as to lose protection of the Act, particularly where the “WTF” and “FTW” buttons and stickers “provided a nonprofane, nonoffensive interpretation on their face.”

The board’s final order in the case barred the two companies from maintaining and enforcing an overbroad rule which banned these employees from wearing the union-provided pins and stickers. The companies were further ordered to cease and desist from refusing to let employees work unless they removed this union insignia.

The case is the latest in a series of cases in which the board is making it very clear that a wide variety of foul, vulgar and otherwise offensive language remains protected speech and does not lose its protection under the Act when the language is used in the context of concerted activity. In the Plaza Auto Center, Inc., Hooters, and Starbucks cases, the Board also condoned extremely offensive language and overturned decisions to terminate employees.

Employers who are considering discipline or termination of employees for foul, vulgar and/or offensive language must step carefully given this series of decisions. You must first make certain that the language used could not be considered to have been part of a discussion or interchange with the employee that could be viewed as concerted activity.

ARTICLE BY Gerald F. Lutkus of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP