NLRB Establishes New Work Rule Standard: Time to Revise Handbooks and Policies

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) published an opinion regarding employer work rules. That opinion in the Stericycle and Teamsters Local 628 matter clarified that employer work rules that have a reasonable tendency to chill employee rights will now carry a presumption of unlawfulness.

The Stericycle decision marks a departure from the employer-friendly Boeing standard (and related cases), which we reported on in 2018 and 2020.

Presumption of Unlawfulness When There is a Reasonable Tendency that Employees’ Section 7 Rights Will Be Chilled

At the outset, the Board stated that the Boeing and LA Specialty Produce standards permit employers to “adopt overbroad work rules that chill employees’ exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the [National Labor Relations] Act” and rejected both. The new framework requires the Board’s general counsel to prove only that the work rule “has a reasonable tendency” to chill employees’ Section 7 rights. If proven, a presumption of unlawfulness is established.

An employer can only overcome the presumption by proving the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest — and a more narrowly tailored rule would not advance that interest.

The Stericycle opinion also repeatedly stated that the Board will interpret workplace rules from the perspective of an employee who is economically dependent on the employer, further evidencing the shift away from an employer-friendly standard.

Retroactive Application

The Board clarified that the new standard will be applied retroactively, specifically stating that previous rules that would have been upheld under Boeing and are now unlawful may require recission and re-drafting.

Going Forward — Handbook/Policy Revision

Companies should evaluate their work rules in light of this new standard from the Board.

Policies that address the following scenarios, in particular, should be carefully reviewed and evaluated to ensure compliance with the employee-friendly Stericycle standard:

Investigation Confidentiality
- The Board specifically addressed whether confidentiality rules during an ongoing investigation are lawful. The Board majority stated there should be no presumption that these rules are lawful, and instead the specific wording must be evaluated.
Non-Disparagement
Outside Employment
Civility Rules
Prohibition of Media Communications
Social Media

Disclaimer

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.