Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Labor Law Edition


Every week, I read a wide variety of cases, articles, blogs, and opinions on employment and labor law issues from around the country.  This week, however, I found a few intriguing articles on labor law topics that really jumped out at me.  As a result, the highlights of my readings this week center on labor law issues.



NLRB Rules Confidentiality Policy is Overbroad

The NLRB recently held that an employer's confidentiality policy which prohibited employees from disclosing confidential information, such as "personal or financial information, etc." illegally restricted the employees' right to engage in protected concerted activity.  Employers that utilize confidentiality policies should ensure they are narrowly drawn or risk litigation over potentially overbroad policies.


Proposed New Union Election Rules = More Unions Likely to Form?

The NLRB has proposed new rules in regard to when employees vote on whether or not to organize a union.  Under the current rules, the median time between the filing of a representation petition by employees, and the NLRB holding an election in a contested organizing campaign, is around 59 days.  The NLRB’s proposed rules would cut that time by more than half, to a very, very quick 25 days or less.  

Employers need to prepare for these changes, should they come into effect, by ensuring their workers and management are well versed on the company's position on unions.  While these proposed rules are not in effect yet, employers need to remain pro-active on this potential change and prepare for a much quicker turn around time on when a vote would occur on unions.


Water Cooler Gossip: The NLRB Says, Gossip Away, Employees

This article addresses Alurus Technical Institute & Joslyn Henderson, a case in which an administrative law judge of the NLRB held that a company’s “No Gossip Policy” violated the National Labor Relations Act.  In essence, the company instituted a policy that “Employees that participate in or instigate gossip about the company, an employee, or customer will receive disciplinary action” in an attempt to slow down a rumor mill in a particular department of the company.  The policy defined “gossip” to include, among other things “talking about a person’s personal life when they are not present,” “talking about a person’s professional life without his/her supervisor present,” and “negative, or untrue, or disparaging comments or criticisms of another person or persons.”  The policy was cited later as one of the reasons for an employee’s termination (although the employer later took the position that it was actually the employee’s solicitation of other employees to work for a competitor that precipitated the firing).

The NLRB held that such a broad “No Gossip” policy was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because it prohibited employees from speaking to coworkers about discipline and other terms and conditions of employment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per