Skip to main content

NLRB: No Section 7 Violation Occurs When Employer Prohibits Use of Company Email For Union Related Activity


T-Mobile USA, Inc - NLRB


Facts:  Chelsea Befort (“Befort”), an employee of T-Mobile, sought to use her company email to communicate with her 595 coworkers and encourage them to join a union.  However, T-Mobile implemented a new workplace policy that employees could not use their company email for certain purposes (including the purpose in which Befort intended.)  Issues arose thereafter over whether T-Mobile’s policy ran afoul of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Analysis:  The NLRB recognized that a prior decision from 2014, Caesars Entertainment, held that “an employer does not violate the Act [NLRA] by restricting the nonbusiness use of its IT resources absent proof that employees would otherwise be deprived of any reasonable means of communicating with each other, or proof of discrimination.”  In this case, the facts in the record showed that T-Mobile’s employees had the ability to verbally converse about the union, exchange Union related material in non work areas, and utilize their own phones and personal emails to communicate about the union.  Based upon this evidence and in accordance with the precedent established in Caesars Entertainment, the NLRB found that Befort’s Section 7 rights were not infringed upon and no violation of the NLRA had occurred.

The Takeaway:  Straight forward matter?  Perhaps. Surprising decision from a pro-employer iteration of the NLRB?  Not really.  With that out of the way, this decision serves as an important reminder of how a prior NLRB decision can have a tremendous impact on subsequent matters.  As Caesars Entertainment had set forth, Section 7 rights will not be violated so long as employees have other forms of communication available.  Had Caesars Entertainment not existed or had this been a more labor friendly iteration of the NLRB, this could have gone the other way.  However, I suggest readers keep in mind that for the time being, these employer friendly decisions will likely continue.

Date:  May 27, 2020

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458310a066

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