Skip to main content

NLRB: Employer Can Lawfully Prohibit Employees From Customizing Their Email Signature Block


David Saxe Productions, LLC - NLRB 


Facts:  (Note, for the purposes of this brief, I am only looking at the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision here as to the employer’s policy that prohibited employees from altering their email signature block.)

The employer maintained a policy that allowed for minimal personal use of their work email so long as it did not become excessive.  Included with that policy was a prohibition on employees altering their email signature block to include quotes, personal agendas, solicitations, etc.  A complaint was filed that this policy ran afoul of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.  The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found this policy to be lawful, relying upon the NLRB’s ruling in Purple Communications, Inc.  (Note, that decision has since been overruled.)  In relying upon Purple Communications, the ALJ held the policy was lawful as the employer had not allowed employees to use their work email for personal use.

Analysis:  The NLRB recognized that while the ALJ misapplied Purple Communications, the NLRB’s 2019 decision in Caesar’s Entertainment still led to the same conclusion that the employer’s policy was lawful.  In Caesar’s Entertainment, the NLRB found that employees have no statutory right to use an employer’s email for Section 7 purposes.  Consequently, the NLRB found in this case that the employer could lawfully prohibit employees from altering their email signature block.

The NLRB then turned to the fact that the employer allowed employees to use their work email for limited personal use and reached the conclusion that it did not alter the final outcome finding no violation of the NLRA occurred.  For starters, the policy did not allow employees to alter their signature block for work or personal use.  Second, there was no evidence that the employer discriminatorily enforced its email signature block policy.  As well, the NLRB did not agree with the argument that a policy that prohibited altering signature blocks was akin to a ban on union insignia.  In short, the NLRB found that the employer’s policy in this case only applied to emails sent on the employer’s system and therefore was not analogous to union pins or buttons.

The Takeaway:  File this one away under a highly relevant decision for many employers.  With that being said, with the make up of the NLRB to change in the coming years as President Joe Biden has the opportunity to appoint his own Board Members, it is possible (if not probable) that a different iteration of the NLRB could reach the opposite conclusion with this set of facts.  For the time being, so long as employers have a facially neutral policy in place that does not delineate between Section 7 related messages and non Section 7 related messages, prohibiting employees from modifying their email signature blocks for any purpose is likely to survive scrutiny.

Date:  April 5, 2021

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833dbd0d

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