NLRB: Employer Should Not Have Asked an Employee How Things Were Going During a Union Campaign

07 August 2017 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Philip B. Phillips

Employers must tread carefully when communicating with employees during union organizing campaigns. A seemingly innocuous question can violate the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) prohibition on employers soliciting grievances during a union organizational campaign and accompanying the solicitation with a promise, express or implied, to remedy such grievances.  However, it is not always clear what type of question or statement constitutes soliciting or promising to remedy grievances.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “the Board”), in a recent 2-1 decision, ruled that an employer violated the NLRA by asking an employee how things were going and stating it would follow-up and look into the employee’s complaints. Republican Board member and recently appointed Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra dissented, concluding that the employer’s actions were not sufficient to constitute soliciting grievances or impliedly promising to remedy them.

The employer in this case operates a long-term care and rehabilitation center. One of the center’s employees made complaints about a supervisor, which were relayed to the Chief Operations Officer (COO).  While visiting the center, the COO approached the employee and asked her how things were going.  After the employee voiced her complaints, the COO stated he would “follow up and look into” those concerns.  He also inquired about the employees’ union activities at the center.  Soon thereafter, the employee and others delivered a Union election petition to the company.

The Board stated that “the solicitation of grievances in the midst of a union campaign inherently constitutes an implied promise to remedy the grievances.” An employer can rebut this presumption of an implied promise by, for example, “establishing that it had a past practice of soliciting grievances in a like manner prior to the critical period, or by clearly establishing that the statements at issue were not promises.” The Board found that the COO’s comments above amounted to soliciting grievances and impliedly promising to remedy them in violation of the NLRA.  The Board also found there was no evidence the COO had previously addressed employee complaints in the same manner.  As a result of the above (and other) violations, the Board ordered a new election.

The above case is a reminder that employers must exercise caution when addressing employee complaints and grievances during union organizing campaigns. Employers should not depart from their normal pre-campaign practices for addressing employee concerns, and should be prepared to provide evidence of those past practices.

The NLRB recently moved one step closer to a Republican majority when on August 2, 2017 the Senate approved President Trump’s first pick (Marvin Kaplan) to fill one of the two vacancies on the Board, which now creates a 2-2 Democrat-Republican split on the Board. If approved, President Trump’s other pick (William Emmanuel), would give the Board a Republican-led majority, which certainly could change the outcome of matters that are decided by the Board.  We’ll be watching the Board makeup and its decisions closely and will provide updates on important developments.

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