Skip to main content

NLRB: Employee That Failed to Follow Security Procedures Was Lawfully Terminated While Engaged in Concerted Protected Activity


KHRG Employer, LLC dba Hotel Burnham & Atwood Cafe - NLRB


Facts:  Evan Demma ("Demma") worked as a server at the Atwood Cafe ("Atwood").  In 2014, Unite Here, Local 1, AFL-CIO, began a campaign to represent KHRG Employer, LLC's ("KHRG") employees.  Throughout the next two years, Demma participated in several union demonstrations and rallies outside Atwood Cafe.  In November 2014, Demma joined a group of other employees and a priest to present a petition about working conditions to KHRG's General Manager.  In October 2015, Demma and about 100 other employees from various employers in the Chicago area took part in a demonstration outside the hotel to make management aware of working conditions.  After the demonstration started, Demma led a group of 20 people (only six of whom were Hotel Burnham employees) to deliver another petition to the General Manager.  To do so, the group was required to enter a secured area of the hotel.  Demma falsely told a security guard that everyone in the group was a hotel employee and took the group into the secured area.  To access the secured area, Demma used a security passcode on a keypad.  In the secured area, cash, corporate checks, personnel files, guests' contracts, and financial reporting papers wore stored.  When the petition was being delivered to the General Manager, some in the group remained unsupervised outside the General Manager's office.  

A subsequent investigation into Demma's actions led to his suspension and termination a few weeks later for committing a "serious security breach."  Unite Here, Local 1, AFL-CIO filed a charge that KHRG Employer, LLC dba Hotel Burnham & Atwood Cafe violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") when it terminated Demma for engaging in concerted protected activity.  An Administrative Law Judge ruled that Demma was lawfully terminated for breaching the security protcol and therefore the termination did not violate the NLRA.

Finding:  The NLRB noted at the outset that the delivery of a petition by employees constitutes protected concerted activity under the NLRA.  In this instance, Demma was told he was terminated for using his passcode to allow nonemployees into the secured area while he was delivering the petition.  In this instance, when an employer defends a discharge based upon employee misconduct that is a part of the res gestae of the employee's protected concerted activity, the employer's motive is not at issue.  Instead, these discharges are considered unlawful unless the misconduct is so egregious as to lose the protections of the NLRA.  Applying this standard, the NLRB held that Demma's actions on that October day lost the protections of the NLRA.  Although the delegation's action in and of itself was not disruptive, the delegation advanced to the secured area only because Demma lied to the security guard about the status of the group and used his passcode to allow the group into the secured area (with some being unsupervised for a period of time while the petition was being delivered to the General Manager).

The NLRB held that Demma's conduct flagrantly violated the hotel's security protocol and unnecessarily placed at risk other employees, the hotel's property, confidential files, and other valuables.  Relying on a 2009 NLRB decision in Akal Security, Inc., the NLRB noted that an employee loses the protections of the NLRA by failing to follow security procedures.

Opinion:  The three member NLRB, comprised of Chairman Kaplan and Members Pearce and McFerran upheld a ruling from an Administrative Law Judge that an employee lost the protections of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA and was lawfully terminated when he took a group (comprised of both employees and non-employees) into a secured area of the hotel and flagrantly violated the hotel's security protocol when the group delivered a petition to a hotel General Manager.

The Takeaway:  Employees, use this decision as a point of reference:  Just because you are engaged in concerted protected activity does not mean that gives you a free pass to do as you please.  As the NLRB was quick to point out in this case, the protections of the NLRA do not apply when an employee fails to follow security procedures.  In this instance, I think the NLRB was correct to point out that Demma's lying to the security guard about the group's employment status coupled with the fact that he willfully allowed the group into the secured area (and let some of them be unsupervised for a period of time) subjected the hotel, its employees, and customers to a serious security threat.  As a result, I believe the NLRB was correct to hold that Demma's termination was lawful, even though he was engaged in concerted protected activity at the time he took the group into the secured area.

Date:  February 28, 2018

Decision:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/KHRGEmployer022818.pdf

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