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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more