It’s a Topsy-Turvy Workplace – Right Now, Common Sense is on Top

18 June 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Dabney D. Ware

Breaking news – sometimes agency guidance, or even enforcement positions, change!

A recent example comes from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with its June 6, 2018, memorandum regarding “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.” While the lack of consistency can be frustrating for employers, there is good news this time: Common sense seems to have triumphed – at least for now. (For a review of some of the prior NLRB guidance, see our prior articles: An Unfair Employer Policy Roundup to Help Avoid Unfair Labor Practices and Employer Handbook Policies Violate the National Labor Relations Act.)

Late last year, the Board established a new test to balance employee and employer rights. This memorandum applies this new standard to various topics commonly addressed in handbooks or other company policies. The new guidance defines three categories of rules and basically states that the mere possibility of impacting a protected right is no longer adequate justification to declare a rule unlawful.

Instead, the NLRB suggests considering what might be a reasonable interpretation of the rule and balancing any potential negative impact on protected rights against the business justification. Nonetheless, employers can still get in trouble by applying rules in a way that prohibits or interferes with protected activity.

The first category involves rules that are generally lawful. A great example of this first category are “Civility Rules,” which generally prohibit rude or condescending behavior, prohibit disparaging comments about coworkers, or prohibit disparaging or offensive language. Notably, the Board mentions that employees can make complaints (and therefore exercise protected rights) without having to resort to disparagement.

Even more important, the Board implicitly recognizes that its prior rulings, which found many civility rules unlawful, created a conflict for employers, who are responsible for protecting employees from harassing behavior. The Board reasoned that this type of rule “advances substantial employee and employer interests, including the employer’s legal responsibility to maintain a workplace free of unlawful harassment, its substantial interest in preventing workplace violence, and its interest in avoiding unnecessary conflict or a toxic work environment . . . or other legitimate business goals.”

The following are additional examples of generally lawful rules:

  • No photography rules and no recording rules
  • Rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations
  • Disruptive behavior rules
  • Rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents
  • Rules against defamation or misrepresentation
  • Rules against using employer logos or intellectual property
  • Rules requiring authorization to speak for company
  • Rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment

The second category of rules are those that should receive individual analysis. The NLRB guidance here is that an employer should assess what rights might be impacted, and whether the negative impact is outweighed by legitimate business reasons. These rules include the following:

  • Broad conflict of interest rules (compared to those that specifically target fraud and self-enrichment)
  • Confidentiality rules that broadly encompass “employer business” or “employee information” (compared to those aimed at customer or proprietary information)
  • Rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer (compared to criticism of employees)
  • Rules regulating use of the employer’s name (compared to use of the logo or trademark)
  • Rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties (compared to speaking on the employer’s behalf)
  • Rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer (compared to rules prohibiting rude or insubordinate behavior at work)
  • Rules against making false or inaccurate statements (compared to making defamatory statements)

The third category involves rules that are generally unlawful because they prohibit or interfere with guaranteed rights. These include the following:

  • Confidentiality rules that specifically prohibit employees from sharing information regarding wages, benefits or working conditions
  • Rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer

For now at least, we can rely a bit more on common sense. Reasonable rules, especially those aimed at protecting other employees, should generally work.  But trying to impose behavioral standards that are too broad or primarily aimed at protecting the company from embarrassment are likely to still be problematic.

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

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.