Skip to main content

NLRB: Employers Can Require Employees Get Approval Before Taking a Second Job

 

Nicholson Terminal & Dock Company - NLRB


Facts:  Nicholson Terminal & Dock Company (“Nicholson”) operated as a maritime cargo company with two facilities in Detroit and Ecorse, Michigan.  Most of Nicholson’s employees are represented by International Association of Machinists Local Lodge 698.  Since September 2016, Nicholson has maintained a Personnel Handbook which provides in part:

Moonlighting 

  • Employees are expected to devote their primary efforts to the Company’s business.  Therefore, it is mandatory that they do not have another job that:
    • Could be inconsistent with the Company’s interests.
    • Could have a detrimental impact on Company’s image with customers or the public.
    • Could require devoting such time and effort that the employee’s work could be adversely affected.
  • Before obtaining any other employment, you must first get approval from the Company Treasurer.  Any change in this additional job must also be reported to the Company Treasurer.
The Administrative Law Judge considered the legality of this Moonlighting rule and held it to be unlawful on the grounds that it would have a “significant potential impact” on employees’ exercise of their National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) rights because organizing activities on behalf of a labor organization, including by paid salts, could be seen as “inconsistent with [Nicholson’s] interests” or as “hav[ing] a detrimental impact on [Nicholson’s] image with customers or the public.  The Administrative Law Judge held that while Nicholson had a legitimate interest in avoiding conflicts of interest that could arise if its employees moonlighted for a competitor, Nicholson’s rule was nevertheless unlawful because it could be “addressed with a better tailor rule.”  Consequently, because Nicholson’s rule was found to have restricted Section 7 of the NLRA, the requirement to obtain permission before obtaining outside employment was also unlawful.  The NLRB proceeded to review the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling.

Analysis:  (Note, this analysis only looks at the Moonlighting rule of Nicholson.)

At the outset, the NLRB recognized that the rule applied only to outside jobs (i.e. paid employment.)  Nicholson’s Moonlighting rule was put in place to ensure that its employees “devote their primary work efforts to the Company’s business.”  Nicholson’s treasurer had testified, without rebuttal, that the purpose of this rule was to ensure that Nicholson’s employees did not work for a competitor or work so many elsewhere that they would be too exhausted to work their regular shift at Nicholson.  Nicholson’s rule did not impose any restrictions on its employees becoming members of a union or volunteering on a union’s behalf.

As for the Administrative Law Judge finding that Nicholson’s rule could have been “better tailored”, the NLRB held that Nicholson’s rule should not be condemned simply because it “could have been written more narrowly to eliminate potential interpretations that might conflict with the exercise of Section 7 rights —interpretations that might occur to an experienced labor lawyer but that would not cross a reasonable employee’s mind.” 

The Takeaway:  This was an intriguing ruling from the NLRB.  As many employees likely engage in some form of moonlighting in some form or fashion, this was a decision worth highlighting for that reason alone.  It is worth noting that the NLRB conceded that Nicholson’s rule could have been better written requiring approval from its treasurer before moonlight would be allowed, that alone was not a sufficient reason for finding it unlawful.  Rather, based in part upon the uncontroverted testimony of Nicholson’s treasurer, I believe the NLRB got it right here in finding that no violation of the NLRA occurred in regard to the language of Nicholson’s Moonlighting rule for its employees.

Date:  July 30, 2020

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45831bc43b


Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more