Tagged: NLRA

Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions in Employment Agreement Deemed Unlawful by NLRB Judge

Over the past two years, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) has attacked various employment policies of union and non-union employers alike, ranging from social media policies to policies that establish protocol for employees to follow when responding to media inquiries. The Board also has been critical of at-will language commonly found in employee handbooks and policies used by employers throughout the country. In light of the Board’s recent actions, some employers–particularly non-union employers that have not historically focused on Board developments–have begun to reassess policy language that has long existed in their handbooks. Due to a recent administrative law judge (“ALJ”) decision, employers should add employment agreements to their list of employment practices to review and Board developments to watch in 2013.

NLRB ALJ Strikes (Employer Policies) Again!

In a recent decision, a NLRB administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) found three policies in the Dish Network’s nationally-distributed handbook unlawful: a social media policy, a policy that restricts contact with the media, and a policy that restricts contact with government agencies. While the challenge to the social media policy is nothing new, the decision serves as a reminder for union and non-union employers alike that no policy is safe from scrutiny by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”).

NLRB Weighs in on Permissible “At-Will” Employment Language

In light of recent guidance by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), non-union employers should review the “at-will” language found in their handbooks (and many standalone policies) to make sure it does not constitute an unlawful waiver of an employee’s right to engage in union activity. By now, it should come as no surprise that the Board has an interest in non-union workplaces. From promoting a mandatory workplace posting requirement to challenging seemingly innocuous social media policies, the Board should be on the radar screen for all employers. Most recently, the Board has weighed in on at-will disclaimers found in most handbooks or manuals. Such disclaimers typically explain that the employment relationship is not a contractual one, and the employer or employee can end employment at any time for any reason so long as that reason is not unlawful.

NLRB’s Third Social Media Report Includes Model Social Media Policy

On May 30, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel issued a third report on social media cases. This report follows the Board’s August 2011 and January 2012 reports on the subject, which we previously discussed. The guidance contained in the three social media reports is applicable to most private sector employers, unionized or not.

Court Applies the Brakes to “Quickie” Election Rules

As previously discussed on the Employment Law Alert, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) recently implemented a rule that could speed up the union election process and, in turn, leave employers with less time to communicate their positions on unions to employees. Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the rule invalid because only two Board members were “present” when the NLRB passed the rule last December. The court explained that the Board did not satisfy the National Labor Relations Act’s requirement that the NLRB have a quorum (typically the presence of three Board members) to conduct business when it voted on the rule. “According to Woody Allen, eight percent of life is just showing up,” wrote the court. “When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that.”

“Quickie” Election Procedures Take Effect Today

On December 22, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or the “NLRB”) issued another “union-friendly” rule that could speed up the union election process, leaving employers with limited time to respond to a union organizing drive. A pending lawsuit challenging the legality of the new rule is outstanding. Notwithstanding, the rule applies to all newly-filed election petitions effective today as the court has not postponed the rule’s effective date despite the ongoing litigation. The court will rule on the legitimacy of the rule by May 15 (before an election could take place under the new rule).

D.C. Circuit Enjoins NLRB Employee Rights Posting Requirement – Deadline for Compliance Delayed Pending Resolution of Legal Challenges

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit entered an order yesterday in National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, enjoining an NLRB posting requirement that would require most private sector companies to post a Notice of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act in their workplaces. The D.C. Circuit ruling came on the heels of the District of South Carolina’s opinion last Friday in the Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB case, which held that the NLRB exceeded its authority when it approved the posting requirement.

April 30, 2012 Deadline for Compliance with NLRB Employee Rights Posting Requirement May Be Extended Again

As we have previously reported in the Employment Law Alert, an National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule adopted last August requires most private sector employers — including companies that are not unionized — to post in their workplaces a Notice of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The deadline for employers to comply, which has been extended twice in the wake of lawsuits challenging the Board’s authority to issue the rule is currently set for April 30, 2012.

NLRB Rules That Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements Violate the NLRA

On January 3, 2012, The National Labor Relations Board issued its decision in, D.R. Horton, Inc. Case No. 12-CA-25764. This is a significant decision for all employers as it prohibits the use of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. Specifically, the Board held that arbitration agreements that contain provisions that prohibit employees from filing joint, class or collective claims addressing their wages, hours or other working conditions against their employer, in any forum, violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB Postpones Effective Date of Workplace Posting Requirement – Again

We previously reported that the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or “NLRB”) issued a final rule requiring most private-sector employers to post a notice of employee rights to unionize in their workplaces. In a follow-up report, we explained that the Board delayed the posting’s effective date from November 14, 2011 until January 31, 2012 in the wake of lawsuits filed by business and industry organizations (including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business challenging the NLRB’s authority to issue such a rule. The Board recently announced that it once again is postponing the effective date of the posting — this time until April 30, 2012 — in order to “facilitate the resolution of the legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule.” We continue to encourage employers to take advantage of this additional time to assess the potential impact that the required posting may have on their workplaces, and the manner in which they may want to communicate with employees regarding their positions on unions (if any). Attorneys in Gibbons Employment and Labor Law Department have extensive experience counseling both union and non-union employers regarding labor relations issues. If you have any questions regarding the impact that this rule may have on your business, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys in the Department.