D.C. Circuit Releases Employer From NLRB Jail

03 August 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

We have frequently commented on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) expansion and creation of sweeping protections to employees engaging in union organizing and other activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act (Act). As but one example, we recently commented on the Board’s concerning decision to consider offensive racial comments protected concerted activity under the Act. The Board – in yet another split decision by Board members with different political allegiances – had previously found employees could not be disciplined for suggesting to their employer’s customers that they are incarcerated inmates when approaching customer homes. In a victory for common sense, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., refused to enforce the Board’s conclusion.

Imagine a telephone company employee walking up to your door wearing a shirt stating “INMATES#” on the front “Prisoner of [the Company]” on the back. Imagine this same individual also wearing a company badge when approaching your home after exiting a van bearing your company’s logos and service marks. This is what occurred in the case at issue and what the Board considered an exercise of protected concerted rights, because the union representing the employees had distributed the inmate t-shirts to employees – apparently to claim they were economic prisoners of the employer – and employees wore them during house visits. Before disciplining anyone, the employer told only those who interacted with customers to remove the t-shirts. 183 employees did not, prompting the company to give them one-day suspensions.

The Board determined those suspensions violated employee rights to engage in protected concerted activity. The federal court reviewing that determination found that common sense dictated a different result, invoking the “special circumstances” exception to the Act. While the Act generally protects the right of employees to wear union apparel at work, as with most any protection, there are limits, and according to the appellate court, “common sense matters in resolving legal disputes.”

Under the “special circumstances” exception, employers have the right to prohibit employees “from displaying messages on the job that the company reasonably believes may harm its relationship with it customers or its public image.” This can include prohibiting grocery store employees from wearing t-shirts that say “Don’t Cheat About the Meat!” or with a picture of a carcass labeled “Road Kill.” In the recent case, both the “special circumstances” exception and common sense dictated that employees wearing inmate t-shirts to customers’ homes could be bad for business, especially in an area where a notorious home invasion and murder had occurred. According to the court, the employer therefore had the right to direct employees not to wear inmate shirts at customers’ homes and discipline those who did.

The case provides several reminders for employers. The first is that, at least for the foreseeable future, employers should remember that the NLRB is not likely to validate many restrictions on employee union or activity, regardless of an employer’s view of the need or common sense basis for the restriction. In the current political landscape then, before issuing citations or prohibiting employees from displaying certain images in an effort to organize, employers should first consider carefully whether or not they reasonably believe the message might damage customer relations or harm the company’s public image and how they can objectively demonstrate that potential harm. Employers should also remember that, if unfair labor practices result from such discipline, while there may be a common sense light and the end of the tunnel, the odds are high they will have to go through the Board process and expect an unfair labor practice finding before common sense arguments have a likely chance of succeeding.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services