Tag: protected concerted activity

It’s Protected: NLRB Finds “Black Lives Matter” Insignia on Employee Uniform Constitutes Protected Activity Under Circumstances

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), in a 3-1 decision, held that an employee’s display on their work uniform of “BLM,” an acronym for Black Lives Matter, constituted protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). Accordingly, the NLRB reversed an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) decision, and found that the employer (Home Depot) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by directing the employee to remove the BLM insignia because it violated the company’s uniform policy. The employee resigned instead of removing the insignia from their uniform.

Procedural History

In June 2022, an ALJ found that the employer did not violate the Act by requiring the employee to remove the BLM messaging, because the insignia lacked “an objective, and sufficiently direct, relationship to terms and conditions of employment.” The ALJ concluded that the BLM messaging was “primarily used, and generally understood, to address the unjustified killings of Black individuals by law enforcement and vigilantes … [and] while a matter of profound societal importance, is not directly relevant to the terms, conditions, or lot of Home Depot’s employees as employees.” (emphasis in original).

Further, the ALJ determined that the employee’s motivation for displaying the BLM message (i.e., their dissatisfaction with their treatment as employees) was not relevant. The petitioner sought review before the NLRB.

NLRB Finds Wearing BLM Insignia at Work Constitutes Protected Activity

On review, the NLRB concluded that the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act because the activity was for “mutual aid or protection,” as it was a “logical outgrowth” of the employee’s and other employees’ complaints about race discrimination in the workplace that allegedly occurred over the preceding months.

According to the NLRB, an individual employee’s actions are a “logical outgrowth” of the concerns expressed by the group where “the record shows the existence of a group complaint,” even though “the employees acted individually and without coordination.” In this case, the fact that the group complaints post-dated the employee’s initial display of the BLM insignia was not dispositive. Instead, and contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion, the NLRB focused on whether the employee’s subsequent refusal to remove the BLM insignia was a “logical outgrowth” of the prior protected concerted activity.

Additionally, the NLRB found that no special circumstances existed, such that there was a sufficient justification for the company to preclude their employees from wearing such insignia. For instance, this was not a situation where display of the insignia might jeopardize employee safety, exacerbate employee dissention, or unreasonably interfere with the company’s public image. In this regard, the NLRB concluded that the company’s public image was not at issue because it encourages employees to customize their uniforms. Likewise, the NLRB held that the company failed to put forth evidence of any non-speculative imminent risks to employee safety from the public and/or any violent or disruptive acts or threats thereof by other employees connected to the BLM insignia.

The NLRB ordered the employer to, among other things, (1) cease and desist from prohibiting employees from taking part in “protected concerted activities,” such as displaying “Black Lives Matter” insignia on their uniform aprons; (2) reinstate the employee without prejudice and compensate him for lost back pay and any adverse tax consequences; and (3) post notice of the decision for 60 days at the store where the dispute arose. The company may still appeal the Board’s decision to a federal appeals court.

Significantly, the NLRB declined to adopt a broader objective advanced by the NLRB General Counsel that protesting civil rights issues on the job is “inherently concerted” activity that is protected by Section 7 of the Act. The fact-intensive reasoning behind the NLRB’s decision here reflects that the underlying circumstances in each situation will play a significant role in the legal outcome as to whether the conduct at issue is protected, and it is not advisable to adopt a broad, one-size fits all rule from this decision.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Protected Activity or Illegal Harassment? Clarification May Be Coming.

It is a difficult balance for employers between respecting the rights to speech and other protected activity of their employees and avoiding a hostile workplace created by such speech. All too often employees may express views that are protected, but in ways that may be intimidating to their co-workers and create a hostile work environment. This tricky balance may soon gain much needed clarification. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals, in issuing a decision in the case of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. NLRB, 945 F.3d 546 (D.C.Cir. 2019) set up the possibility.

The case involved an employee who was notified of his termination after writing “whore board” on the employer’s overtime signup sheet by way of protest of the employer’s newly adopted overtime policy. The administrative judge had found that the speech was protected under the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(1) and that it was an unfair trade practice by illegally restraining the employee’s ability to participate in union activity under Section 8(a)(3).

While the D.C. Circuit agreed with the administrative law judge and the NLRB that the employee had been protected under the Act, it faulted the NLRB’s analysis for failing to take into consideration the employer’s “obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws to maintain a harassment-free environment.” 945 F.3d 546, 551.  The court then remanded the case to the NLRB to consider the balance between the employee’s protected activities and the employer’s responsibility to provide a harassment-free environment. This will potentially give the NLRB a chance to establish a framework in which to balance these types of cases.

The employer, in its arguments set forth two different proposed tests that could have found the employee’s speech to be unprotected due to the vulgar and offensive manner in which it was done. The company put forth a totality of the circumstances test, which would take into account the company’s anti-harassment policies in effect at the time. The employer alternatively proposed that the NLRB adopt the similar four-part test set forth in Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB No. 107 (1979) that would take into consideration: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice.

The test that is chosen will have a substantial effect on how employers can go about protecting their employees from harassment and intimidation while not running afoul of the Act. Great attention should be paid to the result.

© 2020 by Raymond Law Group LLC.

For more on NLRA Protected Speech, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

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

‘Fight for $15’ Walk-Outs and Protests Continue; Are You Prepared for November 10?

national labor relations boardContinuing its three-year campaign, “Fight for $15” on November 4, 2015, announced plans for worker strikes and protests at fast food restaurants in 270 U.S. cities on November 10. The protests, timed to occur one year prior to the 2016 presidential election, is calculated to send a message to voters and candidates. Protests will culminate with a march on the November 10 Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee.

While the fast food workers involved in the walk-outs are not represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a labor union, the walk-outs have largely been organized and funded by the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). Employers with union contracts who have lived with the possibility of strikes are generally more familiar with the rights and obligations of employees and employers under the labor law than their non-union counterparts. But now that walk-outs and work stoppages are becoming an accepted strategy in the non-union workforce, non-union employers need to know the rules, too. Indeed, over three years of protests, scores of unfair labor practice charges have been filed against non-union employers alleged to have interfered with employee participation in protected activity. Moreover, on November 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) upheld a decision finding that a St. Louis Chipotle Grill unlawfully discharged an employee because he engaged in fight-for-$15 protests.

“Protected, Concerted Activity”

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have the right to engage in group activity for the purposes of “mutual aid and protection.” Thus, whether a union is involved, if two or more employees acting in concert walk off the job to protest work conditions or enforce demands relating to the terms of their employment, the walk-out, or strike, generally is protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. (Quickie, intermittent work stoppages might not be.) Under these circumstances, it would be unlawful to discipline or discharge (or otherwise disadvantage) employees for walking off the job. It also means that unless the employees have been permanently replaced (discussed below), the strikers are entitled to be returned to their jobs when they make an unconditional offer to do so.

Lawful Employer Responses to Protected Concerted Activity

Employers are not without rights in dealing with protected concerted activity (“PCA”). First and foremost, employers have a right to continue business operations. This can be accomplished by assigning managers or hiring replacement workers to do the work of the employees who walked off the job. If the strike is not caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers either as permanent or temporary. (If the strike is caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers only as temporary.)

If replacement workers are designated as temporary, when the strikers offer to return to work, the employer is obligated to lay off the temporary workers and put the strikers back to work.

When the employer designates the replacements as permanent, when the strikers offer to return to work, they are placed on a preferential hiring list. In that situation, the employer is not obligated to lay off the replacements, but when positions open up through normal attrition, the employer first has to offer those openings to the former strikers who are on the preferential hiring list.

Walk-outs in the fast food industry have been short, however, typically rendering the hiring of replacement workers impractical. As a practical matter, employers may have to rely on managers or other employees who are not participating in the strike.

Violence and Other Picket Line Misconduct

Employees lose the protection of the NLRA if they engage in certain improper conduct. This includes intermittent or “quickie strikes.” Generally, strikers lose the protection of the NLRA when they engage in a pattern of striking for short periods, returning to work briefly, and then striking again. By engaging in this type of conduct, strikers effectively deny the employer the ability to run its business either by relying on its regular employees or by hiring replacements. The NLRA does not prevent the employer from issuing discipline or discharging employees who participate. However, before taking action, employers should consult counsel and be absolutely certain the particular job action is unprotected.

Other activities that are unprotected include stay-ins or sit-down strikes. A stay-in or sit-down strike occurs when employees refuse to work and also refuse to vacate the employer’s premises. Strikers seek to force the employer to accede to their demands by bringing operations to a halt, preventing the employer from operating. This type of trespasser activity generally is unprotected.

Slow-downs are another tactic sometimes used to impede production. Work is deliberately performed ever more slowly; the employer cannot conduct business and customers fume. Slow-downs are not protected and can be addressed by discipline or discharge.

Lawful Responses to Unprotected Activity

Strikers, of course, are allowed to picket on public property near their place of employment to publicize a labor dispute. They, however, are not privileged to engage in threats, physical assaults, trespass, or property destruction. When they do, employers have these remedies available:

1. Law Enforcement: The most immediate relief available is to call the police. Just because employees ostensibly are engaged in a strike does not immunize them from prosecution when they commit crimes.

2. State Court Injunction: Another remedy is to seek a state court injunction to prohibit violence. This is particularly helpful when there is mass picketing, obstruction of traffic, and blockages of entrances, and the police have difficulty controlling the situation. In these kinds of cases, employers seek court orders prohibiting further violence or destructive activities and limiting to a reasonable number the number of picketers at a particular location at any given time, so police can assure public order.

3. Employer Discipline and Discharge: If the threats, violence and property destruction are egregious enough, the employees involved lose the protection of the NLRA, which means they can be discharged or disciplined. (However, a full investigation should be conducted before the employer takes action to determine what the employee actually did or said. In addition, investigation of past discipline in similar situations not involving protected concerted activity is important because the rules (under the NLRA) prohibit discrimination against employees who engage in such activity. In other words, if, in the past, an employee who was not participating in protected concerted activity engaged in violence for which he was suspended, an employee who engages in similar violence while partaking in protected concerted activity generally also should be suspended, rather than discharged.) Employees should not suffer greater discipline for their misconduct because it occurs while they engage in activity the law protects.

While there is no bright line for evaluating when misconduct becomes unprotected, some general guides may be kept in mind. For example, simple name-calling, momentary blocking of ingress and egress at employer facilities, and simple trespass onto an employer’s property, without any accompanying destruction or violence, probably will not be sufficient to cause the employee to lose the protection of the NLRA. However, physical assaults, participating in extended blocking of ingress or egress, and property destruction are generally the types of conduct that will cause an employee to lose the protection of the NLRA.

Article By Jonathan J. Spitz, Philip B. Rosen, Timothy J. Ryan & Peter N. Moss of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

NLRB Finds Facebook Posts Go Too Far for the Act's Protection

Neal Gerber

As we reported previously, social media issues are troublesome for employers who must navigate unsettled or even conflicting federal and state laws and decisions.  A recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) demonstrates that employers can still protect their business against inappropriate online activity by employees.  Specifically, the NLRB ruled that an Employer acted lawfully in rescinding two employees’ rehire offers, finding that the Facebook conversations between the two were so egregious as to lose protection under the National Labor Relations Act and render the two individuals unfit for further service with the Employer.

The Employer operates a Teen Center that provides afterschool activities to students.  During a period between school sessions, just before the employees would have been rehired for the coming school year, the two individuals engaged in a series of Facebook conversations during which they repeatedly talked, in profane terms, about what they intended to do when they returned to work. The messages contained numerous indications that the two would refuse to follow the rules and policies of the Employer, would refuse to work with management or get required permissions, would engage in various acts to undermine the school’s leadership, and they detailed specific acts of intended insubordination.

The NLRB agreed that the exchange of messages (which certainly discussed their displeasure over working conditions) was “protected concerted activity” under the Act. Normally, such protected activity cannot be the basis of any adverse employment action. However, the Board determined that the conduct constituted “pervasive advocacy of insubordination which, on an objective basis, was so egregious as to lose the Act’s protection.”

In finding the conduct unprotected, the Board relied on the fact that the individuals repeatedly described a wide variety of planned insubordinations in specific detail. According to the Board, these acts were beyond brief comments that might be explained away as a joke or hyperbole divorced from any likelihood of implementation. Rather, the Board concluded that the magnitude and detail of insubordinate conduct advocated in the posts reasonably gave the Employer concern that the two individuals would act on their plans, a risk that a reasonable employer would refuse to take by returning the individuals to the workforce. The Board concluded that the Employer was not required to wait for the employees to follow through on the misconduct they advocated.

This decision gives employers some relief that there are limits to what employees can say on social media, even if the subject of their conversations or postings is “protected” and “concerted”. However, before an employer can take adverse employment action against an employee who engages in such activity, the employer must be able to demonstrate that, on an objective basis, the activity is egregious and pervasive and is of such magnitude and of such detail that it is reasonably likely to be acted upon rather than being mere hyperbole.

[Richmond District Neighborhood Center, 361 NLRB No. 74 — October 28, 2014]

ARTICLE BY

Howard L. Bernstein
OF
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP